Financial report context:
the following table summarizes our rental expense and program- ming license expense charged to operations: .

Financial table:
year ended december 31 ( in millions ): rental expense; 2008: $ 436; 2007: $ 358; 2006: $ 273
year ended december 31 ( in millions ): programming license expense; 2008: $ 548; 2007: $ 484; 2006: $ 350

Additional report context:
contingencies we and the minority owner group in comcast spectacor each have the right to initiate an exit process under which the fair mar- ket value of comcast spectacor would be determined by appraisal . following such determination , we would have the option to acquire the 24.3% ( 24.3 % ) interest in comcast spectacor owned by the minority owner group based on the appraised fair market value . in the event we do not exercise this option , we and the minority owner group would then be required to use our best efforts to sell comcast spectacor . this exit process includes the minority owner group 2019s interest in comcast sportsnet ( philadelphia ) . the minority owners in certain of our technology development ventures also have rights to trigger an exit process after a certain period of time based on the fair value of the entities at the time the exit process is triggered . antitrust cases we are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in december 2003 in the united states district courts for the district of massachusetts and the eastern district of pennsylvania . the potential class in the massachusetts case is our subscriber base in the 201cboston cluster 201d area , and the potential class in the pennsylvania case is our subscriber base in the 201cphiladelphia and chicago clusters , 201d as those terms are defined in the complaints . in each case , the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes , including treble damages . our motion to dismiss the pennsylvania case on the pleadings was denied in december 2006 and classes of philadelphia cluster and chicago cluster subscribers were certified in may 2007 and october 2007 , respectively . our motion to dismiss the massachu- setts case , which was transferred to the eastern district of pennsylvania in december 2006 , was denied in july 2007 . we are proceeding with discovery on plaintiffs 2019 claims concerning the philadelphia cluster . plaintiffs 2019 claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the philadelphia cluster claims . in addition , we are among the defendants in a purported class action filed in the united states district court for the central dis- trict of california ( 201ccentral district 201d ) in september 2007 . the plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video program- ming have entered into agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite ( including us , among others ) , which preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers on an 201cunbundled 201d basis in violation of federal antitrust laws . the plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability to pick and choose the specific 201cbundled 201d channels to which they wish to subscribe , and injunctive relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an 201cunbundled 201d basis . the potential class is com- prised of all persons residing in the united states who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the distributor defendants . we and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss an amended complaint in april 2008 . in june 2008 , the central district denied the motions to dismiss . in july 2008 , we and the other defendants filed motions to certify certain issues decided in the central district 2019s june 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the ninth circuit court of appeals . on august 8 , 2008 , the central district denied the certification motions . in january 2009 , the central district approved a stip- ulation between the parties dismissing the action as to one of the two plaintiffs identified in the amended complaint as a comcast subscriber . discovery relevant to plaintiffs 2019 anticipated motion for class certification is currently proceeding , with plaintiffs scheduled to file their class certification motion in april 2009 . securities and related litigation we and several of our current and former officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania ( 201ceastern district 201d ) in january 2008 . we filed a motion to dismiss the case in february 2008 . the plaintiff did not respond , but instead sought leave to amend the complaint , which the court granted . the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in may 2008 naming only us and two current officers as defendants . the alleged class was comprised of purchasers of our publicly issued securities between february 1 , 2007 and december 4 , 2007 . the plaintiff asserted that during the alleged class period , the defend- ants violated federal securities laws through alleged material misstatements and omissions relating to forecast results for 2007 . the plaintiff sought unspecified damages . in june 2008 , we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint . in an order dated august 25 , 2008 , the court granted our motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff permission to amend the complaint again . the plaintiff has not timely appealed the court 2019s decision , so the dis- missal of this case is final . we and several of our current officers have been named as defend- ants in a separate purported class action lawsuit filed in the eastern district in february 2008 . the alleged class comprises participants in our retirement-investment ( 401 ( k ) ) plan that invested in the plan 2019s company stock account . the plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the plan . the plaintiff seeks unspecified damages . the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in june 2008 , and in july 2008 we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint . on october 29 , 2008 , 67 comcast 2008 annual report on form 10-k .

Question: in 2008 what was the ratio of the rental expense to the programming license expense
Answer: .796