Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2010

Notes To Financial Statements [Abstract]

NOTE 18.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Future cash payments required under arrangements pursuant to contracts entered into by the Company in the normal course of business as of December 31, 2010 are as follows:

	Payments Due by Period
	Total		Year 1		Years 2-3		Years 4-5		More than 5 years
Off balance sheet arrangements:
Purchase obligations(1)	$	4,543,795	$	1,296,121	$	1,675,841	$	626,225	$	945,608
Guarantees(2)		26,760		10,517		16,243		-		-
Letters of credit(3)		58,723		1,450		56,923		-		350
Total	$	4,629,278	$	1,308,088	$	1,749,007	$	626,225	$	945,958

______________

(1)

Purchase obligations primarily include contractual commitments with various programming vendors to provide video services to the Company's subscribers, minimum purchase obligations to purchase goods or services and contractual obligations under certain employment contracts. Future fees payable under contracts with programming vendors are based on numerous factors, including the number of subscribers receiving the programming. Amounts reflected above related to programming agreements are based on the number of subscribers receiving the programming as of December 2010 multiplied by the per subscriber rates or the stated annual fee, as applicable, contained in the executed agreements in effect as of December 31, 2010.

(2)

Includes outstanding guarantees primarily by CSC Holdings in favor of certain financial institutions in respect of ongoing interest expense obligations and potential early termination events in connection with the monetization of the Company's holdings of shares of Comcast Corporation common stock. Does not include CSC Holdings' guarantee of Newsday LLC's obligations under its $650,000 senior secured credit facility.

(3)	Consists primarily of letters of credit obtained by CSC Holdings in favor of insurance providers and certain governmental authorities for the Telecommunications Services segment.

At any time after the thirteenth anniversary of the closing of the Newsday Transaction and on or prior to the date that is six months after such anniversary, Tribune Company will have the right to require CSC Holdings to purchase Tribune Company's entire interest in Newsday Holdings LLC at the fair value of the interest at that time (see Note 4). The table above does not include any future payments that would be required upon the exercise of this put right.

Many of the Company's franchise agreements and utility pole leases require the Company to remove its cable wires and other equipment upon termination of the respective agreements. The Company has concluded that the fair value of these asset retirement obligations cannot be reasonably estimated since the range of potential settlement dates is not determinable.

Other Matters

Sales Tax Audit

The Company has been under examination by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("NYS") for sales tax with regard to the Optimum Voice business for the period June 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007. In March 2009, NYS concluded the audit and issued a proposed assessment ("Notice") totaling approximately $16,000, including tax, interest and penalties. The foregoing amount does not include any amounts which could be assessed for periods subsequent to November 2007, including additional interest. The Notice is not a final assessment at this time, because the Company requested, on a timely basis, further review by the Division of Tax Appeals by filing a petition for an Administrative Law Judge hearing. The principal audit issue is the amount of Optimum Voice revenue that should be subject to tax. The Company has collected and remitted, and continues to collect and remit, sales tax on more than 75% of its VoIP revenue, based in part on the provision of New York state law that specifically excludes interstate and international telephone service from tax and the Company's reasonable calculation of subscriber interstate and international usage. NYS has asserted that all Optimum Voice revenue, less embedded sales tax included in the subscriber fee, bad debts and other customer adjustments, should be subject to sales tax. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to such claim and will continue to vigorously contest the Notice. No provision has been made for such claim in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Montana Property Tax Matter

The Montana Department of Revenue ("MT DOR") generally assesses property taxes on cable companies at 3% and on telephone companies at 6%. Historically, Bresnan Cable's cable and telephone businesses have been taxed separately by the MT DOR. In 2010, MT DOR assessed Bresnan Cable as a single telephone business and retroactively assessed it as such for 2007 through 2009. Bresnan Cable filed a declaratory judgment action against the MT DOR challenging its property tax classifications for 2007 through 2010. The MT DOR has filed an answer to the action and discovery has commenced. Under Montana statute, a taxpayer must first pay a disputed property tax assessment in order to challenge such assessment. In accordance with that statute, in November 2010, Bresnan Cable paid half of its 2010 property tax assessment under protest and is seeking a refund. No provision for additional tax, which amount could be up to approximately $15,000, including interest, as a single telephone business for 2007 through 2009 has been accrued. The Company believes it has substantial grounds for challenging the legal validity of MT DOR's assessments for 2007 through 2010 and intends to vigorously assert such challenges.

Legal Matters

Programming Litigation

On September 20, 2007, an antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Cablevision and several other defendants, including other cable and satellite providers and programming content providers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in packaged tiers rather than on an "à la carte" basis. The plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, sought unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an "à la carte" basis. On December 3, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing principally the same allegations as the plaintiffs' original complaint. On December 21, 2007, the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the claims in the amended complaint. The district court granted the defendants' motions on March 13, 2008, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint contained many of the same allegations as the plaintiffs' original complaint, with limited modifications to address certain of the deficiencies identified in the court's March 13 order. Two of the principal modifications were (1) to reform the relief requested from an order requiring programmers and cable providers to offer channels on an "à la carte" basis, to an order requiring programmers and cable providers to offer the option to purchase on an unbundled basis; and (2) to allege that certain non-defendant programmers have been excluded from the market. On April 22, 2008, the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court denied those motions on June 26, 2008. On August 1, 2008, Cablevision filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 4, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in order to remove any allegation that non-defendant programmers have been excluded from the market as a result of the practices being challenged in the lawsuit. In conjunction with the filing of the third amended complaint, on May 1, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to adjudicate that foreclosure of the non-defendant programmers is not a necessary element of the plaintiffs' antitrust injury. On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On October 15, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. Oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been scheduled for March 7, 2011.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to Cablevision, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, Cablevision and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and carriage was restored. Several class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Cablevision customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits have asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Patent Litigation

Cablevision is named as a defendant in certain lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of the Company's businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants. In certain of these cases the Company expects that any potential liability would be the responsibility of the Company's equipment vendors pursuant to applicable contractual indemnification provisions. To the extent that the allegations in these lawsuits have been analyzed by the Company at the current stage of their proceedings, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. The final disposition of these actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position.

DISH Network Contract Dispute

In 2005, subsidiaries of the Company (now subsidiaries of AMC Networks) entered into agreements with EchoStar Communications Corporation and its affiliates by which EchoStar Media Holdings Corporation acquired a 20% interest in VOOM HD Holdings LLC ("VOOM HD") and EchoStar Satellite LLC (the predecessor to DISH Network, LLC ("DISH Network")) agreed to distribute VOOM on DISH Network for a 15-year term. The affiliation agreement with DISH Network for such distribution provides that if VOOM HD fails to spend $100,000 per year (subject to reduction to the extent that the number of offered channels is reduced to fewer than 21), up to a maximum of $500,000 in the aggregate, on VOOM, DISH Network may seek to terminate the agreement under certain circumstances. On January 30, 2008, DISH Network purported to terminate the affiliation agreement, effective February 1, 2008, based on its assertion that VOOM HD had failed to comply with this spending provision in 2006. On January 31, 2008, VOOM HD sought and obtained a temporary restraining order from the New York Supreme Court for New York County prohibiting DISH Network from terminating the affiliation agreement. In conjunction with its request for a temporary restraining order, VOOM HD also requested a preliminary injunction and filed a lawsuit against DISH Network asserting that DISH Network did not have the right to terminate the affiliation agreement. In a decision filed on May 5, 2008, the court denied VOOM HD's motion for a preliminary injunction. On or about May 13, 2008, DISH Network ceased distribution of VOOM on its DISH Network. On May 27, 2008, VOOM HD amended its complaint to seek damages for DISH Network's improper termination of the affiliation agreement. On June 24, 2008, DISH Network answered VOOM HD's amended complaint and asserted counterclaims alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the affiliation agreement. On July 14, 2008, VOOM HD replied to DISH Network's counterclaims. The Company believes that the counterclaims asserted by DISH Network are without merit. VOOM HD and DISH Network each filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In November 2010, the court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court also granted VOOM HD's motion for sanctions based on DISH Network's spoliation of evidence and its motion to exclude DISH Network's principal damages expert. The trial will be scheduled after DISH Network's appeal of the latter two rulings.

In connection with the AMC Networks Distribution, CSC Holdings and AMC Networks and its subsidiary, Rainbow Programming Holdings, LLC (collectively, the "AMC Parties") have entered into an agreement (the "VOOM Litigation Agreement") which provides that from and after the AMC Networks Distribution date, CSC Holdings retains full control over the pending litigation with DISH Network. Any decision with respect to settlement will be made jointly by CSC Holdings and the AMC Parties. CSC Holdings and the AMC Parties will share equally in the proceeds (including in the value of any non-cash consideration) of any settlement or final judgment in the pending litigation with DISH Network that are received by subsidiaries of AMC Networks from VOOM HD. CSC Holdings and the AMC Parties will also bear equally the legal fees and expenses (above a specified amount for the remainder of 2011).

Other Legal Matters

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to various lawsuits, some involving claims for substantial damages. Although the outcome of these other matters cannot be predicted with certainty and the impact of the final resolution of these other matters on the Company's results of operations in a particular subsequent reporting period is not known, management does not believe that the resolution of these other lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company or the ability of the Company to meet its financial obligations as they become due.