The time-honored term (I first heard it about 40 years ago) for moving broadcast content to cable is called siphoning. As in, siphoning broadcast content. Note that the term existed first in the first time period when broadcast entities could own cable television systems, and took off after entities that owned broadcast stations could not own cable systems in their coverage area. It's not a new fear, but has been replaced by the more realistic concern that narrowcasting and superserving niche audiences has eroded broadcast audiences. So, Tom's query was whether I still believe that companies that owned broadcast networks didn't move broadcast content to cable networks that they owned. Note the use of the term "broadcast networks." Simply stated, that means two or more entities that own broadcast networks. As far as I can tell, this is the scorecard: entity Broadcast network Cable network element Times Disney ABC ESPN Monday Night Football 1 (series) Disney ABC ESPN NASCAR 1 (broadcast) CBS Corporation CBS Showtime none Never News Corp FOX Various regional sports (and other) networks none Never NBC NBC USA Law & Order: Criminal Intent 1 (series, starting this fall) So, for sports, there doesn't seem to be a trend. For non-sports, there is only one instance. Is moving that show to cable better or worse than cancelling it? So, "networks" aren't moving content they own to cable networks and away from broadcast networks they own. Nor are "networks" moving sports content in the same fashion. PERIOD. WARNING: Due to the TVB forecast (first I've ever heard in my life) of declining revenues for TV in the next year, there will be more change in television in the next 10 months than in the past 8 years. On top of that, add issues related to the transition to digital, which might turn out to add to the changes in positive or negative fashion. John Willkie