Federal Communications Commission
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
ERRATUM
Adopted:  October 15, 2008 Released:  October 15, 2008
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
1. On October 10, 2008, the Bureau released a Memorandum Opinion and Hearing 
Designation Order (DA 08-2269) in the above-captioned proceedings.  This Erratum corrects that 
document as indicated herein.
Federal Communications Commission
2
2. Insert into the caption the following docket number:  MB Docket No. 08-214.
3. In the first sentence of paragraph 59, and the third sentence of paragraph 79, the term 
“MASN” should be amended to read “the NFL.”
4. In the first sentence of paragraph 121, the reference to “Section 76.1302(c)” of the 
Commission’s rules should be amended to read “Section 76.1301(c)” and the reference to “Section 
76.1302(a)” of the Commission’s rules should be amended to read “Section 76.1301(a).”
5. Revise paragraph 122 to read as follows:
122. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a/ WealthTV’s 
Complaint against Time Warner Cable Inc. is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING at a date and place to be 
specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for a recommended determination of the 
following issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c), the appropriate price, terms and 
conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried on defendant’s systems and such 
other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
6. Revise paragraph 126 to read as follows:
126. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a/ WealthTV’s 
Complaint against Bright House Networks, LLC is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING at a date and place 
to be specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for a recommended determination 
of the following issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c), the appropriate price, terms and 
conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried in defendant’s systems and such 
other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
7. Revise paragraph 130 to read as follows:
130. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a/ WealthTV’s 
Complaint against Cox Communications, Inc. is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING at a date and place to 
be specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for a recommended determination of 
the following issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c), the appropriate price, terms and 
conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried on defendant’s systems and such 
other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
Federal Communications Commission
3
8. Revise paragraph 134 to read as follows:
134. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Herring Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a/ WealthTV’s 
Complaint against Comcast Corporation is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING at a date and place to be 
specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for a recommended determination of the 
following issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c), the appropriate price, terms and 
conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried on defendant’s systems and such 
other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
9. Revise paragraph 138 to read as follows:
138. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that NFL Enterprises LLC’s Complaint against 
Comcast Corporation is DESIGNATED FOR HEARING at a date and place to be specified in a 
subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for a recommended determination of the following 
issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  whether the defendant has demanded a financial interest in the complainant’s
programming in exchange for carriage in violation of Section 76.1301(a);
(c)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c) or demanded a financial interest in the 
complainant’s programming in exchange for carriage in violation of Section 76.1301(a), the appropriate 
price, terms and conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried on defendant’s 
systems and such other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
10. Revise paragraph 142 to read as follows:
142. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, L.L.P., d/b/a 
Mid-Atlantic Sports Network’s Complaint against Comcast Corporation is DESIGNATED FOR 
HEARING at a date and place to be specified in a subsequent order by an Administrative Law Judge for 
a recommended determination of the following issues:
(a)  whether the defendant has discriminated against the complainant’s programming in favor of 
its own programming, with the effect of unreasonably restraining the complainant’s ability to compete 
fairly in violation of Section 76.1301(c);
(b)  if the Administrative Law Judge determines that the defendant has discriminated against the 
complainant’s programming in violation of Section 76.1301(c), the appropriate price, terms and 
conditions on which the complainant’s programming should be carried on defendant’s systems and such 
other remedies as the Administrative Law Judge recommends.
11. After paragraph 145, inserting the following Section G.:
G. General Ordering Clauses
146. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), in order to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, each party 
Federal Communications Commission
4
to an above-captioned proceeding, in person or by its attorney, SHALL FILE with the Commission, by 
October 17, 2008, a written appearance stating that the party will appear on the date fixed for hearing and 
present evidence on the issues specified herein.1
147. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if any complainant in an above-captioned 
proceeding fails to file a written appearance by the deadline specified above, or has not filed prior to that 
deadline, a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the deadline, the 
Presiding Administrative Law Judge SHALL DISMISS the relevant above-captioned proceeding with 
prejudice for failure to prosecute. 
148. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties to the above-captioned proceedings will be 
served with a copy of this Order and the Erratum thereto by e-mail and by certified mail, return receipt 
requested.
149. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall be made a 
party to each of the above-captioned proceedings without the need to file a written appearance and will 
determine the Enforcement Bureau’s level of participation in the proceedings. 
150. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Hearing Designation Order and the 
Erratum thereto or a summary thereof SHALL BE PUBLISHED in the Federal Register.
12. This action is taken under authority delegated pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Monica Shah Desai
Chief, Media Bureau
  
1 In light of the deadline for a Recommended Decision contained in this Order, the deadline for written appearances 
set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 1.221 is waived and replaced with the deadline set forth above.