FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011 Page: 15,036
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
the subject communities."
10. Petitioners assert that Time Warner's core arguments as to methodology are an untimely
and unpersuasive attempt to challenge the Commission's long-established rules that govern waiver of the
significantly viewed exception." Petitioners note that Time Warner's opposition relies solely on the
testimony of an allegedly "expert" witness who has no experience with regard to broadcast viewership
surveys." Petitioners state that, pursuant to Section 76.54(c) of the Commission's rules, Time Warner
was served a lengthy "notice of survey" that named both the survey organization and described the
procedures to be used, but filed no objection within the required twenty days after receipt.56 Without
such objection, Petitioners state that the Nielsen surveys were ordered, the survey results subsequently
tabulated by Nielsen according to methodology previously accepted by the Commission, and ultimately
submitted as part of the instant waiver petition.57 Moreover, Petitioners argue, that by seeking the denial
of the instant petition on the grounds that the survey evidence should be subjected to drastically different
audience survey rules and procedures, Time Warner is, in essence, seeking a permanent change to the
Commission's clearly stated rules with regard to significantly viewed petitions.58 Petitioners maintain
that, not only should such proposed changes be considered in the context of a rulemaking proceeding, but
Time Warner fails to cite a single Commission precedent in support of its arguments regarding survey
11. In a supplement, Time Warner reiterates its belief that the instant petition is not ripe for
review with regard to KCBS-TV.60 In addition, despite Petitioners' objections, Time Warner maintains
that its arguments regarding methodology are not untimely.6" Time Warner states that it had and has no
objections to the general methodology employed by the Petitioners, but it asserts that the survey notice
failed to disclose the intent to rely on a statistically invalid sample size and this objection could only be
raised after the petition was filed.' Time Warner argues further that it is significant that the Petitioners,
in reply, do not even attempt to rebut the statistical invalidity of their sample size, but instead merely
contend that the Commission has previously condoned the practice of aggregating statistically
insignificant data points to reach allegedly statistically significant results.63 Time Warner states that,
while it recognizes that the Commission may have allowed past petitioners to use aggregation in some
form, it does not believe that this practice has ever been substantively challenged nor has the
"Id. at 4.
55Id. at 4-5.
561d. at 5, citing 47 C.F.R. 76.54(c).
57Id. Petitioners state that it is curious that Time Warner not only accepted this same Nielsen survey
methodology in the two previous Gulf-Califorma Broadcast decisions, but failed to file an objection. See supra n.23
(discussing the previous Gulf-California Broadcast decisions).
58Reply at 7.
59Id. at 8.
60Time Warner Supplement at 1.
6Id at 2.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011, book, November 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc133013/m1/60/: accessed May 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.