Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Bright House Networks, LLC,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc.,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
NFL Enterprises LLC,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 
Defendant
TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, L.L.P.,
d/b/a Mid-Atlantic Sports Network,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 08-214
File No. CSR-7709-P
File No. CSR-7822-P
File No. CSR-7829-P
File No. CSR-7907-P
File No. CSR-7876-P
File No. CSR-8001-P
ORDER
Adopted:  January 16, 2009 Released:  January 16, 2009
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
2
1. On October 10, 2008, the Media Bureau issued a Memorandum Opinion and Hearing 
Designation Order (“HDO”) referring the above-captioned matters to an Administrative Law Judge 
(“ALJ”) for recommended decisions.1 The Media Bureau has since issued Orders noting that the ALJ’s 
delegated authority over these hearing matters has expired under the terms of the HDO and providing that 
the Media Bureau will proceed to resolve these disputes without the benefit of recommended decisions 
from the ALJ.2  
2. In order to assist in the resolution of the above-captioned matters, the parties are directed to 
submit to the Bureau by January 28, 2009, any additional and/or updated arguments and evidence that are 
responsive to the following questions and requests:3
3. WealthTV v. Time Warner Cable, File No. CSR-7709-P
(a) Was the programming offered on MOJO materially different from that offered under the 
name INHD? 4
(b) Is there less demand among consumers for the programming offered by WealthTV than 
there was for the programming offered by MOJO? 
(c) Describe the reasons that led to the decision of iNDEMAND to shut down MOJO.5
(d) Provide all documents discussing (i) Time Warner Cable’s analysis and assessment of 
WealthTV, including its assessment of the potential value of WealthTV to Time Warner 
Cable’s subscribers; and (ii) the reasons for Time Warner Cable’s decision regarding 
whether to carry WealthTV.
4. WealthTV v. Bright House Networks, File No. CSR-7822-P
(a) Was the programming offered on MOJO materially different from that offered under the 
name INHD? 6
(b) Is there less demand among consumers for the programming offered by WealthTV than 
there was for the programming offered by MOJO? 
  
1 In the Matter of Herring Broadcasting Inc., d/b/a WealthTV, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Hearing 
Designation Order, 23 FCC Rcd 14787, MB Docket 08-214 (rel. Oct. 10, 2008) (“HDO”).
2 In the Matter of Herring Broadcasting Inc., d/b/a WealthTV, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 08-
2805, MB Docket 08-214 (rel. Dec. 24, 2008); In the Matter of NFL Enterprises LLC, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, DA 08-2819, MB Docket 08-214 (rel. Dec. 31, 2008).
3 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.7(e), (f).   
4 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point. See, e.g., WealthTV Complaint 
Against TWC at ¶¶ 22, 32 and Exhibit 11; WealthTV Reply to TWC at 15 and Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Jedd Palmer, 
at ¶ 7; TWC Answer at 22-24, Exhibit 8, Declaration of Michael Egan, at ¶¶ 5-6, 14, and Exhibit 9, Declaration of 
Stacie Gray, at ¶¶ 3-7, 9.
5 See Letter from Michael H. Hammer, Counsel for Comcast, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, File No. CSR-
7907-P (filed October 10, 2008).
6 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point. See, e.g., WealthTV Complaint 
Against BHN at ¶¶ 17, 27, Exhibit 7, Affidavit of Jedd Palmer, at ¶ 7, and Exhibit 9; WealthTV Reply to BHN at 
15-16; BHN Answer at 22-23 and Exhibit 6, Declaration of Stacie Gray, at ¶¶ 3-7, 10.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
3
(c) Describe the reasons that led to the decision of iNDEMAND to shut down MOJO.7
(d) Provide all documents discussing (i) Bright House Network’s analysis and assessment of 
WealthTV, including its assessment of the potential value of WealthTV to Bright House 
Network’s subscribers; and (ii) the reasons for Bright House Network’s decision 
regarding whether to carry WealthTV.8
5. WealthTV v. Cox, File No. CSR-7829-P
(a) Was the programming offered on MOJO materially different from that offered under the 
name INHD? 9
(b) Is there less demand among consumers for the programming offered by WealthTV than 
there was for the programming offered by MOJO? 
(c) Describe the reasons that led to the decision of iNDEMAND to shut down MOJO.10
(d) Provide all documents discussing (i) Cox’s analysis and assessment of WealthTV, 
including its assessment of the potential value of WealthTV to Cox’s subscribers; and (ii) 
the reasons for Cox’s decision regarding whether to carry WealthTV.
6. WealthTV v. Comcast, File No. CSR-7907-P
(a) Was the programming offered on MOJO materially different from that offered under the 
name INHD? 11
(b) Is there less demand among consumers for the programming offered by WealthTV than 
there was for the programming offered by MOJO? 
(c) Describe the reasons that led to the decision of iNDEMAND to shut down MOJO.12
  
7 See supra n.5.
8 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point. See, e.g., BHN Answer at 15-16, 
Exhibit 2, Declaration of Anne Stith, at ¶ 11, and Exhibit 4.
9 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point. See, e.g., WealthTV Complaint 
Against Cox at ¶¶ 19, 29, Exhibit 6, Affidavit of Jedd Palmer, at ¶ 7,and Exhibit 7; WealthTV Reply to BHN at 16-
17; Cox Answer at 2-3, 8-9, Exhibit 1, Declaration of Robert C. Wilson, at ¶¶ 11, 14, and Exhibit 2, Declaration of 
Stacie Gray, at ¶¶ 3-7, 10.
10 See supra n.5.
11 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point. See, e.g., WealthTV Complaint 
Against Comcast at ¶¶ 17, 27, Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jedd Palmer, at ¶ 7, Exhibit 10; WealthTV Reply to Comcast 
at 19-20; Comcast Answer at 3 (¶ 5), 17 (¶ 34), 18-19 (¶ 36), Exhibit 2, Declaration of Madison Bond, at ¶ 18; 
Exhibit 6, Declaration of Stacie Gray, at ¶¶ 3-9.
12 See supra n.5.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
4
(d) Provide all documents discussing (i) Comcast’s analysis and assessment of WealthTV, 
including its assessment of the potential value of WealthTV to Comcast’s subscribers; 
and (ii) the reasons for Comcast’s decision regarding whether to carry WealthTV.
7. NFL Enterprises v. Comcast, File No. CSR-7876-P
(a) How does the popularity of the programming offered by the NFL Network compare to 
the popularity of programming offered by Versus and the Golf Channel?  For example, 
how does the popularity of professional football programming compare to the popularity 
of the flagship professional sports programming carried by the Golf Channel (golf) and 
Versus (hockey, bull riding, cage fighting, and cycling)? 
(b) Is there a substantial demand among consumers to see out-of-market NFL games?  
(c) How does the license fee for the NFL Network compare to the license fee for other sports 
networks?13
(d) When Comcast moved the NFL Network to a premium sports tier, did it reduce the 
monthly fees charged to customers who were no longer receiving the NFL Network?14
(e) Provide all documents discussing (i) Comcast’s analysis and assessment of the NFL 
Network, including its assessment of the potential value of the NFL Network to 
Comcast’s subscribers; and (ii) the reasons for Comcast’s decision to move the NFL 
Network to a sports tier.
(f) Did any representative of Comcast ever state or imply to any representative of the NFL 
that Comcast might move the NFL Network to the premium sports tier if the NFL did not 
license a package of eight live NFL regular season games to Versus?15  
8. MASN v. Comcast, File No. CSR-8001-P
(a) How does the license fee charged by MASN compare to the license fee charged by 
Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia and Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic?
(b) Is there a demand for the programming offered by MASN in the Harrisburg DMA, the 
Roanoke-Lynchburg DMA, and the Tri-Cities DMA? For example, was programming 
currently carried by MASN previously carried by Comcast-affiliated RSNs in those 
DMAs?16 To what extent do other MVPDs carry MASN in these DMAs?17  
  
13 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point.  See, e.g., NFL Reply to Comcast 
at ¶ 24.
14 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point.  See, e.g., NFL Reply to Comcast 
at ¶ 20, Exhibit 3, Declaration of Frank Hawkins, at ¶ 8.
15 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point.  See, e.g., NFL Complaint 
Against Comcast at ¶ 73, Exhibit 3, Declaration of Frank Hawkins, at ¶ 11; Comcast Answer to NFL at 75-76 (¶ 73).
16 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point.  See, e.g., MASN Complaint 
Against Comcast at ¶¶ 13, 78, 87; MASN Reply to Comcast at ¶ 81; Comcast Answer to MASN at ¶¶ 11, 45, p.36-
37 (¶ 13), p. 49 (¶ 78), Exhibit B, Declaration of Madison Bond, at ¶ 18, and Exhibit C, Declaration of Michael 
Ortman, at ¶ 9.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
5
(c) Provide all documents discussing (i) Comcast’s analysis and assessment of MASN, 
including its assessment of the potential value of MASN to Comcast’s subscribers in the 
Harrisburg DMA, the Roanoke-Lynchburg DMA, and the Tri-Cities DMA; and (ii) the 
reasons for Comcast’s decision regarding whether to carry MASN on its systems in the 
Harrisburg DMA, the Roanoke-Lynchburg DMA, and the Tri-Cities DMA.
 
9. In addition, by January 28, 2009, each party shall file with the Bureau a best and final offer 
for the price for carriage of the complainant’s network on the defendant’s systems18 and explain the 
justification for such offer.  These filings will assist the Bureau in determining the appropriate price for 
carriage in the event that the Bureau finds in favor of a complainant and determines that mandatory 
carriage of a complainant’s programming on a defendant’s systems is an appropriate remedy.19
10. We anticipate that some of the documents submitted by the parties (each a “Submitting 
Party”) in response to this Order may contain proprietary or confidential information, and that, therefore, 
such documents should be made available pursuant to a Protective Order.  Consequently, the Media 
Bureau hereby adopts the Protective Order attached as Appendix A to ensure that any confidential or 
proprietary documents submitted by a Submitting Party are afforded adequate protection.20 This 
Protective Order does not constitute a resolution of the merits concerning whether any information 
submitted under the Protective Order would be released publicly by the Commission upon a proper 
request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) or otherwise.
11. Each party shall have the option to file with the Bureau a Brief by February 6, 2009.  The 
Brief must not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages and shall focus only on the significance of 
information submitted in response to this Order.  
12. The Media Bureau will resolve these matters by the following dates:
WealthTV v. Time Warner Cable, File No. CSR-7709-P – February 13, 2009
WealthTV v. Bright House Networks, File No. CSR-7822-P – February 13, 2009
WealthTV v. Cox, File No. CSR-7829-P – February 13, 2009
WealthTV v. Comcast, File No. CSR-7907-P – February 13, 2009
MASN v. Comcast, File No. CSR-8001-P – February 20, 2009
NFL Enterprises v. Comcast, File No. CSR-7876-P – February 27, 2009
13. This Order is issued pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 616 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j) and 536, and Section 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
(Continued from previous page)    
17 We ask the parties to supplement and/or update the existing record on this point.  See MASN Complaint Against 
Comcast at ¶ 15; MASN Reply to Comcast at ¶ 82 and p. 44 n.139; Comcast Answer to MASN at p. 27 n.83 and 
Exhibit C, Declaration of Michael Ortman, at ¶ 12.
18 In the case of WealthTV, the price will be for carriage on the tier on which the defendant carried MOJO.  In the 
case of the NFL Network, the price will be for carriage on the expanded basic tier.  In the case of MASN, the price 
will be for carriage on the expanded basic tier.
19 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1302(g).
20 The Protective Order we adopt here is based on the standard protective order adopted by the Commission for 
program access complaints.  See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 
of 1992 – Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution: Section 628(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act: Sunset of Exclusive Contract Prohibition, MB Docket No. 07-29, Report and Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 17791, 17894-99, Appendix E (2007) (“2007 Program Access Order”), appeal pending sub nom. Cablevision 
Systems Corp. et al v FCC, No. 07-1425 et al (D.C. Cir).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
6
U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), and 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457(d), 76.7, and 76.1300-1302, and authority delegated under 
Section 0.283 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Shah Desai
Chief, Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
7
APPENDIX A
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Bright House Networks, LLC,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc.,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
NFL Enterprises LLC,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 
Defendant
TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, L.L.P.,
d/b/a Mid-Atlantic Sports Network,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 08-214
File No. CSR-7709-P
File No. CSR-7822-P
File No. CSR-7829-P
File No. CSR-7907-P
File No. CSR-7876-P
File No. CSR-8001-P
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1. This Protective Order is intended to facilitate and expedite the review of documents obtained 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
8
from a person submitted in response to the Media Bureau’s Order, DA 09-55, released on January 16, 
2009, that contain trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information.  It 
establishes the manner in which “Confidential Information,” as that term is defined herein, is to be 
treated.  The Order is not intended to constitute a resolution of the merits concerning whether any 
Confidential Information would be released publicly by the Commission upon a proper request under the 
Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law or regulation, including 47 C.F.R. § 0.442.
2. Definitions.
a. Authorized Representative. “Authorized Representative” shall have the meaning set 
forth in Paragraph 8.
b. Commission. “Commission” means the Federal Communications Commission or any 
Bureau or Office within the Commission acting pursuant to delegated authority.
c. Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” means (i) information submitted 
to the Commission by the Submitting Party that has been so designated by the Submitting Party and 
which the Submitting Party has determined in good faith constitutes trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information which is privileged or confidential within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the 
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) and (ii) information submitted to the Commission by 
the Submitting Party that has been so designated by the Submitting Party and which the Submitting Party 
has determined in good faith falls within the terms of Commission orders designating the items for 
treatment as Confidential Information.  Confidential Information includes additional copies of, notes, and 
information derived from Confidential Information.
d. Declaration. “Declaration” means Attachment A to this Protective Order.
e. Reviewing Party. “Reviewing Party” means a person or entity participating in this 
proceeding or considering in good faith filing a document in this proceeding.
f. Submitting Party. “Submitting Party” means a person or entity that seeks confidential 
treatment of Confidential Information pursuant to this Protective Order.
3. Claim of Confidentiality.  The Submitting Party may designate information as 
“Confidential Information” consistent with the definition of that term in Paragraph 2.c of this Protective 
Order.  The Commission may, sua sponte or upon petition, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459 and 0.461, 
determine that all or part of the information claimed as “Confidential Information” is not entitled to such 
treatment.
4. Procedures for Claiming Information is Confidential.  Confidential Information submitted 
to the Commission shall be filed under seal and shall bear on the front page in bold print, “CONTAINS 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.” Confidential 
Information shall be segregated by the Submitting Party from all non-confidential information submitted 
to the Commission.  To the extent a document contains both Confidential Information and non-
confidential information, the Submitting Party shall designate the specific portions of the document 
claimed to contain Confidential Information and shall, where feasible, also submit a redacted version not 
containing Confidential Information.
5. Storage of Confidential Information at the Commission.  The Secretary of the 
Commission or other Commission staff to whom Confidential Information is submitted shall place the 
Confidential Information in a non-public file.  Confidential Information shall be segregated in the files of 
the Commission, and shall be withheld from inspection by any person not bound by the terms of this 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
9
Protective Order, unless such Confidential Information is released from the restrictions of this Order 
either through agreement of the parties, or pursuant to the order of the Commission or a court having 
jurisdiction.
6. Access to Confidential Information.  Confidential Information shall only be made 
available to Commission staff, Commission consultants and to counsel to the Reviewing Parties, or if a 
Reviewing Party has no counsel, to a person designated by the Reviewing Party.  Before counsel to a 
Reviewing Party or such other designated person designated by the Reviewing Party may obtain access to 
Confidential Information, counsel or such other designated person must execute the attached Declaration. 
Consultants under contract to the Commission may obtain access to Confidential Information only if they 
have signed, as part of their employment contract, a non-disclosure agreement the scope of which 
includes the Confidential Information, or if they execute the attached Declaration.
7. Disclosure.  Counsel to a Reviewing Party or such other person designated pursuant to 
Paragraph 6 may disclose Confidential Information to other Authorized Representatives to whom 
disclosure is permitted under the terms of Paragraph 8 of this Protective Order only after advising such 
Authorized Representatives of the terms and obligations of the Order.  In addition, before Authorized 
Representatives may obtain access to Confidential Information, each Authorized Representative must 
execute the attached Declaration.
8. Authorized Representatives shall be limited to:
a. Subject to Paragraph 8.d, counsel for the Reviewing Parties to this proceeding, 
including in-house counsel, actively engaged in the conduct of this proceeding and their associated 
attorneys, paralegals, clerical staff and other employees, to the extent reasonably necessary to render 
professional services in this proceeding; 
b. Subject to Paragraph 8.d, specified persons, including employees of the Reviewing 
Parties, requested by counsel to furnish technical or other expert advice or service, or otherwise engaged 
to prepare material for the express purpose of formulating filings in this proceeding; and 
c. Subject to Paragraph 8.d., any person designated by the Commission in the public 
interest, upon such terms as the Commission may deem proper; except that,
d. Disclosure shall be prohibited to any persons in a position to use the Confidential 
Information for competitive commercial or business purposes, including persons involved in competitive 
decision-making, which includes, but is not limited to, persons whose activities, association or 
relationship with the Reviewing Parties or other Authorized Representatives involve rendering advice or 
participating in any or all of the Reviewing Parties’, Associated Representatives’ or any other person’s 
business decisions that are or will be made in light of similar or corresponding information about a 
competitor.
9. Inspection of Confidential Information.  Confidential Information shall be maintained by 
a Submitting Party for inspection at two or more locations, at least one of which shall be in Washington, 
D.C.  Inspection shall be carried out by Authorized Representatives upon reasonable notice not to exceed 
one business day during normal business hours.
10. Copies of Confidential Information.  The Submitting Party shall provide a copy of the 
Confidential Material to Authorized Representatives upon request and may charge a reasonable copying 
fee not to exceed twenty five cents per page.  Authorized Representatives may make additional copies of 
Confidential Information but only to the extent required and solely for the preparation and use in this 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
10
proceeding.  Authorized Representatives must maintain a written record of any additional copies made and 
provide this record to the Submitting Party upon reasonable request.  The original copy and all other copies 
of the Confidential Information shall remain in the care and control of Authorized Representatives at all 
times.  Authorized Representatives having custody of any Confidential Information shall keep the 
documents properly and fully secured from access by unauthorized persons at all times.
11. Filing of Declaration.  Counsel for Reviewing Parties shall provide to the Submitting 
Party and the Commission a copy of the attached Declaration for each Authorized Representative within 
five (5) business days after the attached Declaration is executed, or by any other deadline that may be 
prescribed by the Commission.
12. Use of Confidential Information.  Confidential Information shall not be used by any 
person granted access under this Protective Order for any purpose other than for use in this proceeding 
(including any subsequent administrative or judicial review), shall not be used for competitive business 
purposes, and shall not be used or disclosed except in accordance with this Order. This shall not preclude 
the use of any material or information that is in the public domain or has been developed independently by 
any other person who has not had access to the Confidential Information nor otherwise learned of its 
contents.
13. Pleadings Using Confidential Information.  Submitting Parties and Reviewing Parties 
may, in any pleadings that they file in this proceeding, reference the Confidential Information, but only if 
they comply with the following procedures:
a. Any portions of the pleadings that contain or disclose Confidential Information must be 
physically segregated from the remainder of the pleadings and filed under seal;
b. The portions containing or disclosing Confidential Information must be covered by a 
separate letter referencing this Protective Order;
c. Each page of any Party's filing that contains or discloses Confidential Information 
subject to this Order must be clearly marked: “Confidential Information included pursuant to Protective 
Order, MB Docket No. 08-214, File No. CSR-7709-P et al;” and
d. The confidential portion(s) of the pleading, to the extent they are required to be served, 
shall be served upon the Secretary of the Commission, the Submitting Party, and those Reviewing Parties 
that have signed the attached Declaration.  Such confidential portions shall be served under seal, and shall 
not be placed in the Commission's Public File unless the Commission directs otherwise (with notice to the 
Submitting Party and an opportunity to comment on such proposed disclosure).  A Submitting Party or a 
Reviewing Party filing a pleading containing Confidential Information shall also file a redacted copy of 
the pleading containing no Confidential Information, which copy shall be placed in the Commission's 
public files.  A Submitting Party or a Reviewing Party may provide courtesy copies of pleadings 
containing Confidential Information to Commission staff so long as the notations required by this 
Paragraph 13 are not removed.
14. Violations of Protective Order.  Should a Reviewing Party that has properly obtained 
access to Confidential Information under this Protective Order violate any of its terms, it shall 
immediately convey that fact to the Commission and to the Submitting Party.  Further, should such 
violation consist of improper disclosure or use of Confidential Information, the violating party shall take 
all necessary steps to cease and remedy the improper disclosure or use.  The Violating Party shall also 
immediately notify the Commission and the Submitting Party, in writing, of the identity of each party 
known or reasonably suspected to have obtained the Confidential Information through any such 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
11
disclosure.  The Commission retains its full authority to fashion appropriate sanctions for violations of 
this Protective Order, including but not limited to suspension or disbarment of attorneys from practice 
before the Commission, forfeitures, cease and desist orders, and denial of further access to Confidential 
Information in this or any other Commission proceeding.  Nothing in this Protective Order shall limit any 
other rights and remedies available to the Submitting Party at law or equity against any party using 
Confidential Information in a manner not authorized by this Protective Order.
15. Termination of Proceeding.  Within two weeks after final resolution of this proceeding 
(which includes any administrative or judicial appeals), Authorized Representatives of Reviewing Parties 
shall, at the direction of the Submitting Party, destroy or return to the Submitting Party all Confidential 
Information as well as all copies and derivative materials made, and shall certify in a writing served on 
the Commission and the Submitting Party that no material whatsoever derived from such Confidential 
Information has been retained by any person having access thereto, except that counsel to a Reviewing 
Party may retain two copies of pleadings submitted on behalf of the Reviewing Party.  Any confidential 
information contained in any copies of pleadings retained by counsel to a Reviewing Party or in materials 
that have been destroyed pursuant to this paragraph shall be protected from disclosure or use indefinitely 
in accordance with Paragraphs 10 and 12 of this Protective Order unless such Confidential Information is 
released from the restrictions of this Order either through agreement of the parties, or pursuant to the 
order of the Commission or a court having jurisdiction.
16. No Waiver of Confidentiality.  Disclosure of Confidential Information as provided herein 
shall not be deemed a waiver by the Submitting Party of any privilege or entitlement to confidential 
treatment of such Confidential Information.  Reviewing Parties, by viewing these materials: (a) agree not 
to assert any such waiver; (b) agree not to use information derived from any confidential materials to seek 
disclosure in any other proceeding; and (c) agree that accidental disclosure of Confidential Information 
shall not be deemed a waiver of the privilege.
17. Additional Rights Preserved.  The entry of this Protective Order is without prejudice to 
the rights of the Submitting Party to apply for additional or different protection where it is deemed 
necessary or to the rights of Reviewing Parties to request further or renewed disclosure of Confidential 
Information.
18. Effect of Protective Order.  This Protective Order constitutes an Order of the Commission 
and an agreement between the Reviewing Party, executing the attached Declaration, and the Submitting 
Party.
19. Authority.  This Protective Order is issued pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the 
Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j) and 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
12
DECLARATION
In the Matter of
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Time Warner Cable Inc.
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Bright House Networks, LLC,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc.,
Defendant
Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WealthTV,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
NFL Enterprises LLC,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 
Defendant
TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, L.L.P.,
d/b/a Mid-Atlantic Sports Network,
Complainant
v.
Comcast Corporation,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 08-214
File No. CSR-7709-P
File No. CSR-7822-P
File No. CSR-7829-P
File No. CSR-7907-P
File No. CSR-7876-P
File No. CSR-8001-P
I, _____________________________, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I 
have read the Protective Order that has been entered by the Commission in this proceeding, and that I 
agree to be bound by its terms pertaining to the treatment of Confidential Information submitted by 
parties to this proceeding.  I understand that the Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to anyone 
except in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order and shall be used only for purposes of the 
proceedings in this matter.  I acknowledge that a violation of the Protective Order is a violation of an 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-55
13
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  I acknowledge that this Protective Order is also a 
binding agreement with the Submitting Party.  I am not in a position to use the Confidential Information 
for competitive commercial or business purposes, including competitive decision-making, and my 
activities, association or relationship with the Reviewing Parties, Authorized Representatives, or other 
persons does not involve rendering advice or participating in any or all of the Reviewing Parties’, 
Associated Representatives’ or other persons’ business decisions that are or will be made in light of 
similar or corresponding information about a competitor. 
(signed) __________________________
(printed name) _____________________
(representing) ______________________
(title) _____________________________
(employer) _________________________
(address) __________________________
(phone) ___________________________
(date) _____________________________