NOTE 18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Future cash payments and commitments required under arrangements pursuant to contracts entered into by the Company in the normal course of business as of December 31, 2011 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)	$	4,781,546	$	1,486,257	$	1,728,672	$	857,002	$	709,615
Guarantees(2)		26,151		22,685		3,466		-		-
Letters of credit(3)		60,948		7,087		1,711		52,150		-
Total	$	4,868,645	$	1,516,029	$	1,733,849	$	909,152	$	709,615

______________

(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 2011 multiplied by the per subscriber rates or the stated annual fee, as applicable, contained in the executed agreements in effect as of December 31, 2011.

(2)

Includes franchise and performance surety bonds primarily for the Company's Telecommunications Services segment. Also 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 loan facility. Amounts due by period for this off-balance sheet arrangement represent the year in which the commitment expires.

(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. Amounts due by period for this off-balance sheet arrangement represent the year in which the commitment expires.

At any time after the thirteenth anniversary of the closing of the Newsday acquisition 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. 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.

Legal Matters

Cable Business Litigation

Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.: On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit 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, as amended, 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. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief. On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On October 15, 2009, the District Court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any non-defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary element of the alleged antitrust injury. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 3, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the action. On July 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. In an order issued on October 31, 2011, following the death of a member of the original panel, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision, denied the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc as moot, and directed that the three-judge panel be reconstituted with a new third member. The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC: The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision-compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation: 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 the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this action. The Court's decision is pending. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al.: On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former officers, by a Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between February 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York area. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

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. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

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, but granted VOOM HD's motion for sanctions based on DISH Network's spoliation of evidence as well as its motion to exclude DISH Network's principal damages expert. DISH Network appealed these latter two rulings. On January 31, 2012, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court issued a decision affirming (i) the trial court's finding of spoliation and imposition of the sanction of an adverse inference at trial; and (ii) the trial court's decision to exclude DISH Network's damages expert. On February 6, 2012, DISH Network filed a motion seeking leave from the Appellate Division to appeal the order. VOOM has opposed the motion. Further proceedings in the trial court remain stayed pending the appellate court's ruling on the motion.

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 once such costs reach an agreed-upon threshold.

Tax Disputes

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 and penalties. 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 administrative hearing has been adjourned to allow the Company and NYS an opportunity to discuss possible resolutions of this matter. 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.

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 in Montana State Court challenging its property tax classifications for 2007 through 2010. Under Montana law, a taxpayer must first pay a current assessment of disputed property tax in order to challenge such assessment. In accordance with that law, Bresnan Cable has paid substantially all of its 2010 property tax assessment under protest, which the Company expensed when the payments were made, and is seeking a refund of the protested amount. 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 made. On September 26, 2011, the Court granted Bresnan Cable's summary judgment motion seeking to vacate the MT DOR's retroactive tax assessments for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009. The MT DOR cannot appeal this ruling until there is a final judgment in the case. The MT DOR's assessment for 2010 was the subject of a trial which took place the week of October 24, 2011, in Billings, Montana. The Court's decision is pending. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Bresnan Cable paid the first half of the 2011 protest assessment (which totals approximately $11,000 for full year 2011), which is included in technical and operating expense. Bresnan Cable expects to pay and expense the second half of the 2011 protest assessment ($5,500) in the second quarter of 2012. The Company believes it has substantial grounds for challenging the legal validity of MT DOR's assessments and intends to vigorously assert such challenges.

Other Legal Matters

On April 15, 2011, Thomas C. Dolan, a director and Executive Vice President, Strategy and Development, in the Office of the Chairman at Cablevision, filed a lawsuit against Cablevision and Rainbow Media Holdings in New York Supreme Court. The lawsuit raises compensation-related claims (seeking approximately $11,000) related to events in 2005. The matter is being handled under the direction of an independent committee of the Board of Directors of Cablevision. Based on the Company's assessment of this possible loss contingency, no provision has been made for this matter in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

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.