There were no signs of a breakthrough in the ongoing retransmission consent battle between Cablevision and Fox Broadcasting that, for the second week, has left Cablevision viewers in the New York market without access to Fox programming. Notwithstanding Cablevision’s continued pleas for binding arbitration and a barrage of letters to the FCC from both sides, the standoff continued through Wednesday night, forcing Cablevision subscribers to hook up over-the-air antennas or locate friends or relatives with access to another pay TV service to view the opening game of the major league baseball World Series. As reported last week, News Corp.—the parent company of Fox Broadcasting—cut off its signal feed to Cablevision on October 16 after the companies failed to reach agreement on renewed program carriage terms. In addition to broadcast television stations WNYW and WWOR in New York City and Philadelphia’s WTXF, affected channels include Nat Geo Wild and Fox Deportes, a Spanish-language sports service. Responding to an FCC inquiry in which both companies were asked to describe how they have fulfilled statutory obligations to negotiate in “good faith,” Cablevision CEO James Dolan told the agency in a letter on Monday that News Corp.’s “take it or leave it” demand of more than $150 million per year for the channels in question constitutes a violation of the good faith clause. (Under Cablevision’s previous contract with Fox, the cable operator paid $70 million per year for the same channels.) As such, Dolan argued that the FCC is authorized “to redress News Corp.’s violations of the good faith requirement by ordering News Corp. to submit to arbitration and by requiring News Corp. to immediately allow Cablevision to carry the Fox stations.” As a Fox spokesman replied that “we have never made any ‘take it or leave it’ demands nor are we asking for $150 million in fees,” Michael Hopkins, the president of affiliate sales and marketing for Fox Networks, told the FCC that a grant of Cablevision’s request “would open the door to every future negotiation being distorted by arbitration demands in lieu of marketplace negotiations.”