DISSENTING STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Applications of Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. For Consent To Assign or Transfer 
Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14-57; Applications of AT&T, Inc. and 
DIRECTV For Consent To Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB 
Docket No. 14-90
While I appreciate my colleagues willingness to discuss my concerns and listen to efforts to fix 
this flawed course of action, I must strenuously dissent to today’s order in which Commission generally 
affirms, with some changes, the staff’s determination allowing access to highly confidential agreements in 
the Comcast-Time Warner and AT&T-DirecTV merger proceedings and setting forth when and how they
will be provided to third parties. The documents at issue contain the extremely sensitive pricing and term
information of America's leading programming content producers—a crown jewel of American creativity 
and a major American export to the world marketplace.    
I am not convinced that access to such materials by outside parties is necessary for consideration 
of the pending merger transactions, especially given the risks at stake and because the Commission has 
not disclosed these agreements in the past.  I have been told that disclosure is necessary to ensure
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a dubious reading of the statute and 
questionable justification as the Commission has ignored it numerous times of late.  I also find it 
duplicitous to suggest that disclosing the market-sensitive information of content creators is acceptable, 
while it is permissible to withhold information about certain secretive ex parte meetings held on the topic.    
Moreover, the content producers are not parties to the transactions and their rights cannot and 
should not be trampled over for some ulterior political goal.  No matter how safe or protected this 
information may seem, you can never promise with any level of certainty that the information won't get 
out in some form or be used in separate proceedings: This bell cannot be unrung.  To me, this appears to 
be more of a fishing expedition by interests groups and competitors to obtain market-sensitive 
information.  Thus, this action could clearly result in irreparable harm and I hope that some court will 
recognize this.
I also cannot agree with the about face on our longstanding presumption that sensitive documents 
would not be disclosed until any challenges were reviewed by the Commission and, if appropriate, a court 
of competent jurisdiction.  Suddenly, last Tuesday’s orders altered our normal course to inexplicably 
provide access to such documents after the Media Bureau responds to any challenge in favor of the party 
seeking disclosure.  Affected parties should have the ability to exercise their rights to protect sensitive 
information if they wish.  At least today’s item makes some minor modifications to the protective orders,
which will allow programmers seven days to obtain a stay from the court and prevent disclosure of these 
agreements online.  Placing sensitive agreements online would have been reckless so it is an improvement 
that these documents will be visible only in the offices of the submitting parties, but it highlights how 
outrageous making these documents accessible is in the first place.