Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
September 17, 2014
DA 14-1350
Elizabeth Ryder
Vice President & General Counsel
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.
5215 N. O’Connor Blvd.
Suite 1400
Irving, TX 75039
Matthew A. Brill
Matthew T. Murchison
Latham & Watkins LLP
Counsel for Time Warner Cable Inc.
555 Eleventh Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Cody Harrison
Sabin, Bermant & Gould LLP
Counsel for Bright House Networks
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
In re:  Emergency Petition for Injunction and Sanctions
MB Docket No. 12-212, CSR-8690-C
Dear Ms. Ryder and Messrs. Brill, Murchison, and Harrison:
By this letter, we dismiss the Petition initiating the above-referenced proceeding and terminate 
the proceeding.
On July 13, 2012, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”), licensee of television stations WBRE-
TV, WTWO, and WROC-TV (the “Stations”), filed a Petition asking the Commission to direct
Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”) and Bright House Networks, LLC (“Bright House”) to cease 
carrying the Stations in certain areas.
1
  Nexstar alleged that TWC and Bright House carried the 
                                                
1
Emergency Petition for Injunction and Sanctions, MB Docket No. 12-212, filed Jul. 13, 2012 (the “Petition”).  The 
parties subsequently exchanged responsive pleadings.  See Opposition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House
Networks to Petition for Injunction and Sanctions, MB Docket No. 12-212, filed Aug. 16, 2012 (“TWC/Bright 
House Opposition”); Reply of Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. to the Opposition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House 
2Stations outside of their local markets as a replacement for stations with the same network 
affiliations that TWC and Bright House deleted during a retransmission consent dispute with a 
third party.
2
  TWC and Bright House responded that their importation of the distant signals did 
not violate any FCC rule and was authorized under the parties’ retransmission consent 
agreement.
3
  In addition to their response on the merits of the Petition, TWC and Bright House 
stated that the requested relief is “now moot, as Respondents have reached a new retransmission 
consent agreement with the local stations and have ceased importation of Nexstar’s signals.”
4
  
While Nexstar acknowledges that injunctive remedies are no longer necessary, it still asks the 
Commission to issue a ruling that TWC must comply with the Commission’s notice 
requirements.
5
The Commission’s rules require a cable operator to “provide written notice to 
any broadcast television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or 
repositioning that station,” and the cable operator also must provide such notice to the cable 
system’s subscribers.
6
  In addition, a cable operator must notify subscribers of “any changes in 
rates, programming services or channel positions as soon as possible in writing,” with at least 30 
days advance notice if the change is within the cable operator’s control.
7
All parties agree that TWC no longer carries the Stations in the markets at issue.  Accordingly, 
the requested grant of injunctive relief is now moot.  In addition, we exercise our discretion to 
decline to consider sanctions, and to decline to consider application of the notice requirements to
this adjudicatory proceeding.
8
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition in the above-referenced proceeding IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that the above-referenced proceeding IS TERMINATED.  
                                                                                                                                                            
Networks to Emergency Petition for Injunction and Sanctions, MB Docket No. 12-212, filed Aug. 29, 2012 
(“Nexstar Reply”).
2
See Petition at 3-4.
3
See TWC Opposition at 2.
4
Id.
5
Nexstar Reply at 6-7.
6
47 C.F.R. § 76.1601.
7
Id. § 76.1603(b).
8
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2(a) (“The Commission may, in accordance with section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedure 
Act, on motion or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.”) 
(emphasis added); ACC Licensee, Inc. v. Shentel Telecommunications Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
MB Docket No. 12-5, 27 FCC Rcd 7584, 7591, ¶ 18 (MB, 2012) (declining to address alleged notice violations, 
noting the Commission’s discretion not to enforce the notice requirements in all instances).
3This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the Commission’s 
rules.
9
Sincerely, 
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division
Media Bureau
                                                
9
47 C.F.R. § 0.283.