The federal regulatory body wants more info from Comcast and NBC Universal like details on carriage deals, online distribution, rates, and so on while it reviews the planned merger. The FCC made another follow-up request on Monday in letters to both companies and demanded compliance in the form of written and electronic compliance by October 18th. Broadcasting & Cable was first with the details. Requests like this that makes insiders and outsiders think the merger approval may extend beyond the end of 2010. And yet, publicly and privately, Comcast’s Steve Burke last week began to take control of NBCU as its new CEO, replacing Jeff Zucker whom he fired. The FCC is requesting the following info based on its documents:

MB Docket No. 10-56

SECOND INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT REQUEST
FOR COMCAST CORPORATION

lala
4 years
What merger has the govt bothered to halt since the failed United/US Air merger in 2000? Yeah,...
swifty
4 years
I've got a bad feeling about this!!! Reminds me of pre Finsyn. Thank the lord I don't...
wallyworld
4 years
Lets cross our fingers that the fcc breaks up this merger. Politics is at play here and...

I. Instructions and Definitions
We incorporate herein by reference the instructions and definitions contained in the initial
Information and Discovery Request dated May 21, 2010, as revised by letter dated June 3, 2010,
and in subsequent clarifying discussions with Commission staff. Moreover, as subsequently
discussed with staff, the responses and documents must be submitted both in paper and electronic
form, the latter in a manner that is fully compatible with the Commission’s Summation software
database. To the extent that Comcast contends that any of the documents or information
requested below reflects Highly Confidential material that does not fall within the specific
categories of such materials outlined in the Second Protective Order in this Docket, it should
submit a letter requesting Highly Confidential treatment of such materials, and explaining why
such treatment is warranted.

II. Information and Documents Requested
65. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements, including all attachments and
amendments thereto, for distribution of each Regional Sports Network in all markets to the
following entities: Time Warner Cable (“TWC”), DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter,
Cablevision, Bright House, Mediacom, CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and
AT&T.

66. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements with each of the following entities,
including all attachments and amendments thereto, related to each entity’s distribution of
“E!”: TWC, DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House, Mediacom,
CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and AT&T.

67. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements with each of the following entities,
including all attachments and amendments thereto, related to each entity’s distribution of
the Golf Channel: TWC, DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House,
Mediacom, CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and AT&T.

68. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements with each of the following entities,
including all attachments and amendments thereto, related to each entity’s distribution of
Style: TWC, DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House, Mediacom,
CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and AT&T.

69. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements with each of the following entities,
including all attachments and amendments thereto, related to each entity’s distribution of
Versus: TWC, DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House, Mediacom,
CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and AT&T.

70. Provide the Company’s two most recent agreements with each of the following entities,
including all attachments and amendments thereto, related to each entity’s distribution of
Sprout: TWC, DIRECTV, DISH, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House, Mediacom,
CableOne, Wide Open West, RCN, Verizon and AT&T.

71. Describe in detail any plans the Company’s has to deploy broadband service to unserved
and/or underserved areas.

72. Describe in detail all the Company’s subscriber acquisition plans related to the Fisher
Communications dispute. In addition, provide all e-mails, correspondence and other
documents related to the related to the dispute, including, but not limited to, all e-mails, if
any, that Comcast sent to Fisher Communications related to
http://www.onlycharlieknows.com. Also provide the number of visitors to that website that
were redirected to the Company’s website during the dispute.

73. With regard to Exhibits 4.1(a)-4.7(g) submitted in response to the May 21, 2010
Information and Discovery Request, provide all available data from June 2005 through the
most recent date for which data is available. Also, provide this data at the zip code, sub
region, entity and DMA level of specificity, as available. In addition, with regard to
Exhibit 3.2, provide the Comcast entity identification number for each zip code.

74. Provide Project Cavalry deployment data for each market by month from the initial
deployment to the present, including newly deployed homes for each month, as well as the
cumulative totals of deployed homes in each DMA by month. Also, provide any internal
analyses of customer losses, increased call center volumes, or other such incidents related
to Cavalry deployment.

75. Provide a detailed description of all factors that caused the expansion of the Company’s
footprint in Eugene and Portland, Oregon, between January 2009 and June 2009
(“Expansion”), including, but not limited to, an explanation of the reason why Comcast’s
footprint grew at a faster rate during the period of Expansion than during the months prior
to January 2009 and after June 2009. Explain whether any new nodes were added during
the Expansion and, if so, identify the locations of homes passed added to the Comcast
footprint. Describe in detail whether the increase in footprint size during the Expansion
was a planned expansion or was a response to changes in market competition. Provide all
e-mails, correspondence and other documents, as well as data related to these issues.

76. Provide all data related to the extent of competitor overbuilding within the Company’s
footprint, expressing the data at the zip code, entity and DMA level of specificity, as the
percentage of homes passed by each competing firm. To the maximum extent possible,
organize and provide this data by competing firms, which should include, without
limitation, any successors in interest to former Regional Bell Operating Companies, RCN,
and WOW. Provide this data by month from 2004 to the most recent date for which such
data is available.

77. Describe, with particularity, the HITS service, including, but not limited to, the nature and
extent of Comcast’s participation in the selection and configuration of the programming
lineups of MVPDs not affiliated with Comcast that use the service.

78. Describe the operation of the Company’s managed services, including PPV, VOD, and
video delivery (DLC) services (and any others provided by CMC and iNDemand to other
MVPDs. For each service, describe how it is sold, who pays for it (the MVPD, or the
subscriber, or the network) and in what manner, and who must arrange for the license (the
MVPD or Comcast).

79. Explain the advantages the Company’s service provides over competing services that
would cause an MVPD to choose to utilize the Company’s services instead of providing the
services itself.

80. Identify the Company’s competitors in the managed services market. Provide data on the
number of total systems served by the Company and each competitor, as well as the
number of households and respective market shares of each market participant from 2005
to 2010. Also provide data on the programming networks that the Company provides to
each such competitor and the compensation received by the Company for providing the
programming. If there is any programming of a network in which that the Company has an
attributable interest in that is it currently does not provide to these competitors, provide the
reason why it is not.

81. What programming networks are offered through the HITS service? How is it decided
whether to carry a particular network on this service? Identify the networks that the
Company carries on its own systems that are not carried on HITS? Can an MVPD
customer of the HITS service determine what programs it will receive, and can it decide to
not receive and pay for a particular network carried on HITS? Who pays the networks
carried on HITS –the Company or the receiving MVPD? In what manner?

82. Provide a list of the programming networks not carried on HITS that the Company carries
on its own systems, as well as VOD content carried by the Company but not carried by the
CMC VOD service. Explain whether an MVPD serviced by the HITS service is able to
decide what programs it will receive and how revenues/payments for networks carried by
CMC services are structured, and from whom they are collected.

83. Provide all revenue and cost data from 2005 to 2010 by source for the managed services,
including but not limited to, annual revenues, ARPU, profit margins per MVPD system and
household serviced, capital and operating expenditures and EBITDA. Also, provide data
on the annual revenues that the Company generates from supplying programming of a
network in which it has an attributable interest to other competing third party transport,
VOD and PPV providers from 2005-2010.

84. Describe the Company’s decision process for rebranding a programming network and/or
shifting programming from one network to another within the Comcast family of
businesses, including, but not limited to: (i) the potential costs associated with
renegotiating contracts; (ii) promoting the new network; and (iii) loss or gain of
subscribers. Furthermore, provide a detailed analysis and supporting data sufficient to
show the costs and benefits, including, without limitation, revenues that were incurred by
Comcast: (i) in rebranding the Outdoor Life Channel to Versus; (ii) for shifting
programming across two networks; and (iii) for recently launched networks such as G4 and
FearNet.

85. Describe how the Company determines whether to carry a particular programming network
on its own systems and in what geographic areas that network will be carried. Explain and
provide an example of how the Company evaluates potential substitutes for any given
network, including, but not limited to: (i) in which geographic areas it will make such
substitutes; (ii) what metrics it uses; (iii) how it evaluates potential subscriber losses for not
carrying a given network in a market; and (iv) whether this a primary consideration when
negotiating the per-subscriber carriage fee.

86. Provide the per-subscriber advertising revenues by year, from 2005 to the present, for each
programming network in which the Company holds an attributable interest.

87. Identify all subscriber rate changes made during the last two years by the Company and the
amounts for each for standalone video service by tier (e.g., basic, expanded basic, digital)
and for bundled services by type (e.g., video, voice and broadband, video and broadband,
or video and voice) in any geographic area.

88. Identify each carriage agreement into which the Company has entered during the last two
years that has resulted in a change in tier placement for the subject network in any
geographic area covered by the agreement.

89. Describe and provide all documents related to the Company’s current subscriber equipment
and expected changes during the next three years, including a description of the status and
time frame for changing navigation features to allow viewers to select programs by
searching a particular category of programming rather than by channel. What factors or
criteria does the Company plan to use in developing the search algorithm? For example,
how will the Company determine what programs are included in a particular search result
and how will it determine a show’s placement in the listing of “results” delivered to the
viewer?

90. Describe the Company’s process for national advertising representation for its local and
regional programming (e.g., Regional Sports Networks), and the manner in which it
represents competing MVPDs.

91. Provide the Company’s current channel line-ups, along with the percentage of programming
channels currently operated, managed, or in which the Company holds an attributable
interest, as well as the percentage of such channels that the Company will operate, manage
or in which it will hold such an interest post-acquisition, for the largest cable system in
terms of subscribers in the following DMAs:
DMA 1 New York
DMA 3 Chicago
DMA 4 Philadelphia
DMA 5 San Francisco
DMA 6 Boston
DMA 8 Washington DC
DMA 11 Houston
DMA 17 Miami
DMA 18 Denver
DMA 27 Hartford
DMA 57 Fresno

92. Identify the top 20 advertisers on each of the Company’s programming networks and the
Company’s annual revenue from each from such advertising.

93. Identify the top 20 advertisers on each of the Company’s online properties (vertical sites
and aggregators/portals) and the Company’s annual revenue from each from such
advertising.

94. Submit a copy of Vince Vittore & Molchanov, Consumers Consider Axing the Coax,
Yankee Group, April 22, 2010, referenced in the Company’s July 21, 2010, Opposition to
Petitions to Deny and Response to Comments (“Opposition”) at 89 n. 276. Also, submit a
copy of Convergence Consulting, The Battle for the American Couch Potato: New
Challenges and Opportunities in the Content Market, April 2010, referenced in the
Opposition at 89 n. 279.

95. Identify and describe, by parties, addressee, date, and subject matter, all agreements,
memoranda of understanding, letters, correspondence, written testimony, e-mails and
similar documents, by which the Company has made commitments with third parties in
connection with the future operation of its proposed LLC with NBCU. For each, also
describe in detail the nature of the commitment. With regard to those such documents that
have not been filed with the Commission in MB Docket No. 10-56, provide a copy of each.