Mediacom's CEO Calls on Members of Congress to Demand that Sinclair's CEO Answer Allegations.

MIDDLETOWN, N.Y. -- Rocco B. Commisso, Chairman and CEO of Mediacom Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: MCCC), is calling on members of Congress who represent Mediacom's employees and customers in 23 states to demand that David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBGI), appear before Congress to answer the specific allegations made by Mediacom in its letter to Congress on January 13, 2007.

David Smith's response letter to members of Congress dated Tuesday, January 16, 2007 simply failed to answer any of the specific allegations made by Mediacom and did not even attempt to justify Sinclair's continuing discrimination that has adversely impacted two million Mediacom cable viewers in 700,000 households in smaller communities across America.

David Smith's effort to characterize the dispute as a "simple commercial negotiation" between two companies ignores two fundamental facts:

-- First, millions of television viewers across the country are being
   adversely affected by the negotiations, and Sinclair has made it
   clear in numerous public statements that it simply does not care
   about how its behavior affects consumers. If Sinclair succeeds in
   its strategy to use Mediacom and its subscribers to set an example
   for the entire cable industry, consumers will wind up paying $6
   billion or more a year in extra costs while receiving nothing new
   in return.

   Last February, David Smith publicly stated that broadcasters should
   be paid $4.50 per subscriber or more for retransmission consent.
   More recent statements by him and Barry Faber, Sinclair's General
   Counsel, make clear this would just be the beginning--in their
   view, each broadcast station should be paid at least $2.00 per
   subscriber per month, meaning that in a market with six broadcast
   stations, consumers would see at least $12 per month added to their
   cable and DBS bills just so they can continue to receive broadcast
   station programs that are supposed to be free over-the-air.

-- Second, David Smith glosses over the fact that Sinclair is a
   broadcaster making free use of taxpayer-owned spectrum. Concerned
   that negotiations over retransmission consent, unlike ordinary
   commercial negotiations, have such a potential for adversely
   affecting the public interest, Congress decided that the parties
   to retransmission consent negotiations should be subject to rules
   that require them to observe specified standards, including a
   requirement that the broadcaster not engage in discriminatory
   pricing not justified by competitive marketplace conditions.

Even if Sinclair's outrageous conduct were to be upheld after all appeals are exhausted, that would simply mean that the law does not work as intended and Congress needs to act to immediately fix the broken statutory scheme so that American television viewers are protected from the choice of either paying billions of dollars in higher cable and DBS bills or a return to rabbit-ears to watch free over-the-air television.

Other key points not addressed by David Smith's letter include the following:

* On January 14, Mediacom renewed its efforts to submit the dispute to binding arbitration before the FCC's Media Bureau, as recommended by the FCC and by members of Congress. As recently as yesterday, Chairman Martin, at a Washington press conference, publicly urged Sinclair to submit to binding arbitration. To date, Sinclair has not even told Mediacom whether it will agree in principle to such arbitration. In fact, it has repeatedly stalled in giving Mediacom an answer to that simple question, which Mediacom asked yet again just yesterday. Today, an email from Mr. Faber indicated that executives at Sinclair are so busy that no response to our question could be expected until next week at the earliest.

* David Smith's assertion that arbitration is an "unusual approach" in resolving issues in commercial transactions appears in conflict with Sinclair's own business practices. Sinclair routinely enters into a variety of agreements that contain arbitration clauses including, most notably, binding arbitration provisions in the employment contract between Barry Faber, General Counsel and VP, and Sinclair. (See below for examples). Moreover, various organizations report that thousands of commercial arbitrations are conducted every year. In addition, arbitration has been utilized in other circumstances involving matters within the FCC's jurisdiction, including disputes over telephony interconnection agreements and in at least three prominent situations involving retransmission consent.

* The FCC possesses broad and ample authority under the Communications Act to protect the public interest, which could include ordering/authorizing carriage of a programming service. (See below for a number of examples of such actions by the FCC during the past 10 years.)

* David Smith's letter incorrectly implies that the full FCC has already voted on this complaint when, in reality, only the Media Bureau has acted to date. The FCC Commissioners have yet to decide the merits of Mediacom's bad faith complaint against Sinclair.

* The Iowa court has not ruled on the merits of Mediacom's anti-trust claims. The only action to date is the Court's denial of a preliminary injunction request. Mediacom has not yet had its day in court on the full merits of its claims. If Mediacom prevails in this litigation, Sinclair will be exposed to millions of dollars of damages payable to Mediacom.

* David Smith's letter ducks the issue of Sinclair's abusive behavior and discriminatory conduct, a continuation of Sinclair's apparent strategy to simply ignore concerns articulated by key state and federal officials.

        -- Sinclair rebuffed last week's request to submit to binding
           arbitration and resume carriage signed by the entire
           bi-partisan Iowa Congressional Delegation.

        -- Yesterday, six Iowa State Senators called for Sinclair to
           authorize interim carriage since the Iowa Government
           Oversight Committee cancelled a meeting yesterday
           "to accede to Sinclair's request for a delay."
           (See below for the full text of the Iowa Senate News
           Release.)

* Sinclair has issued at least two extensions of time to permit Time Warner to continue carriage of Sinclair's stations while the parties negotiate. Mediacom has repeatedly offered to accept the same terms given to Time Warner, but Sinclair refuses.

* Sinclair makes much of Mediacom's public airing of the dispute. Sinclair, however, was the first one to go public by: (1) issuing the stations' termination notice on the afternoon that Mediacom was pricing a public debt offering in late September, 2006; (2) making damaging and inflammatory comments to the investment community in their November 1, 2006 Earnings Call and predicting severe financial consequences to Mediacom if the Sinclair stations went dark on Mediacom cable systems; and (3) instituting a campaign together with DirecTV to entice Mediacom customers to switch to Mediacom's largest competitor (Sinclair has not used those same tactics in its ongoing negotiations with Time Warner).

In order to avoid further confusion and help elected officials obtain a better understanding of all the facts in the dispute between Mediacom and Sinclair, today Mediacom's CEO challenges David Smith to join him in testifying unconditionally and under oath before Congress about the retransmission consent dispute between the companies. Congress may be required to do what the FCC has not yet done: hold Sinclair publicly accountable for its discrimination against Mediacom, its customers, and employees.

Examples of Sinclair's use or acceptance of binding arbitration provisions in non-Mediacom agreements:

1. Employment agreements. Sinclair apparently requires binding
   arbitration provisions in employment contracts. For example,
   Sinclair has sought to enforce a binding arbitration provision when
   sued by a former local sales manager (sex discrimination among
   other claims) (cited as 2003 WL 22972357 (Ohio App. 2 Dist.))
   (2003): has an employment agreement of Barry Faber, Sinclair Vice
   President and General Counsel, from 2004 that requires binding
   arbitration (publicly available at
   http://onecle.com/contracts/sinclair/faber.emp.2004.08.04.shtml);
   and has an employment agreement of David D. Smith, Sinclair
   President and CEO, from 1995 that requires binding arbitration
   (publicly available at
 http://onecle.com/contracts/sinclair/smith-david.emp.1995.06.12.shtml
    ).

2. Network affiliation agreements. Sinclair has utilized arbitration
   provisions in network affiliation agreements in the past. For
   example, the KDSM (Des Moines) agreement with the Fox Television
   Network requires binding arbitration (2002)
   (publicly available at
   http://contracts.onecle.com/sinclair/fox.affil.2002.07.01.shtml).

3. Acquisitions. In a variety of transactions by Sinclair or its
   affiliates, including the purchase of numerous radio and television
   stations, the definitive agreements have required arbitration
   certain matters. Binding arbitration provisions were included, for
   example, in agreements related to the acquisition of, or from, STC
   Broadcasting, Inc (1999)
   (publicly available at
   http://contracts.onecle.com/sinclair/stc.apa.1999.03.05.shtml);
   Tuscaloosa Broadcasting, Inc and others (1998)
   (publicly available at
   http://contracts.onecle.com/sinclair/stc.apa.1998.02.03.shtml);
   Grant Television, Inc.; and River City Broadcasting (acquisition of
   KDSM and WLOS in 1996) (publicly available at
http://contracts.onecle.com/sinclair/river-city.apa.1996.04.10.shtml).

4. Smith Family LLCs. Sinclair's President and CEO and members of his
   family agreed to a broad arbitration clause as part of a 1997
   amendment to an Operating Agreement of an LLC to which they were
   parties (publicly available at
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/12/20/0001104659-04-040463/
   Section6.asp). (Due to its length, this URL may need to be
   copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove
   the extra space if one exists.)

Examples of FCC's Broad Authority Under the Communications Act to Protect the Public Interest

The FCC possesses broad and ample authority under the Communications Act to protect the public interest. See, for example, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i) and 303(j). This would include ordering/authorizing carriage of a programming service (in this case, Sinclair's off-air signals). Such actions are not new to the FCC. Consider the following examples during the past 10 years:

1. The FCC ordered Time Warner Cable systems to carry at least one
   commercial news programming service other than CNN. Turner
   Broadcasting System, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 19595 (1996).

2. The FCC effectively granted retransmission consent at no cost to
   seven cable operators for a broadcast signal where the broadcaster
   violated statutory notice requirement. In the Matter of U.S. Cable
   Group, L.P., 14 FCC Rcd 21074 (1999).

3. The FCC ordered Time Warner Cable to reinstate carriage of ABC
   off-air stations owned by Disney during "sweeps" ratings period.
   Time Warner Cable, 16 FCC Rcd 5403 (2001).

4. The FCC ordered Time Warner Cable to carry programming of the NFL
   Network. Time Warner Cable, 21 FCC Rcd 9016 (2006).

5. The FCC ordered Fox to submit to arbitration of retransmission
   consent disputes involving its owned and operated stations and to
   allow cable systems to carry such stations while the arbitration
   was underway. News/Hughes Merger Order, 19 FCC Rcd 473,
   paragraph 222 (2004).

6. The FCC gave Mid-Atlantic Sports Network the option to invoke
   arbitration to obtain carriage on certain of Comcast's cable
   systems in lieu of a hearing on MASN's complaint that Comcast was
   discriminating against MASN because it was an independent
   programmer. TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, L.L.P., 39 CR 205
   (2006).

News Release Issued by Iowa Senators Joe Bolkcom, Sen. Bob Dvorsky, Sen. Rob Hogg, Sen. Jack Hatch, Sen. Wally Horn and Sen. Matt McCoy on Wednesday, January 17, 2007

         Senators call on Sinclair to restore programming
             until Oversight hearings are conducted

Six State Senators today released this statement this afternoon:

"We are disappointed to learn about the cancellation of today's meeting of the Joint Government Oversight Committee of the Iowa Legislature to review the facts in the Mediacom-Sinclair retransmission dispute."

"Resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue. Iowans want this dispute to stop disrupting their lives."

"While we understand that the Government Oversight Committee members have cancelled today's meeting to accede to Sinclair's request for a delay, we also believe that resolution of this protracted dispute is overdue."

"Today, we are calling on Sinclair to immediately allow Mediacom to resume carrying the KDSM signal in Des Moines market and the KGAN signal in Cedar Rapids until both sides have a chance to appear before the Government Oversight Committee and to resolve this dispute."

"Clearly, a resumption of carriage is in the best interests of Iowa's television viewing public. It would show tremendous good faith on Sinclair's part and go a long way toward restoring public confidence and showing viewers that they aren't pawns in a game."

                           -end-

Mediacom Communications is the nation's 8th largest cable television company and one of the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities and towns in the United States. Mediacom Communications offers a wide array of broadband products and services, including traditional video services, digital television, video-on-demand, digital video recorders, high-definition television, high-speed Internet access and phone service.