FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011 Page: 15,037
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Commission explicitly condoned the method.t In any event, Time Warner states, even if aggregating
data is permissible, the Petitioners' submissions still do not meet the minimum sample size necessary to
reach a statistically significant result.65 Moreover, Time Warner contends, Petitioners' misleading and
meritless attack on the statistical expert used herein does nothing to assist them in meeting the "high
hurdle" their waiver request faces in this proceeding.66 Petitioners state in reply that Time Warner's
unorthodox letter supplement is merely another attempt to unlawfully rewrite the Commission's rules and
is expressly prohibited in these proceedings.67
12. In Petitioners' supplement, they reference the Commission's decision in WTVG, Inc. and
WUPW Broadcasting, LLC, which denied a request for stay, filed by a Toledo-based cable operator.68 In
that decision, the Media Bureau squarely rejected the cable company's challenge to the petitioner's
evidence demonstrating that the Detroit stations were not significantly viewed, concluded that the
Nielsen data was adequate and the cable company's proposed changes to longstanding evidentiary rules
were beyond the scope of the special relief proceeding.69 Petitioners contend that this order is relevant to
the arguments advanced by Time Warner herein." In reply, Time Warner argues that the Petitioners'
reliance on the Toledo decision is misplaced, the case is not material to the Bureau's decision herein and
does not assist the Petitioners in satisfying the Commission's waiver requirements.7 Time Warner states
that, according to the Petitioners, WTVG is relevant primarily because it rejected a cable operator's
attempt to challenge the Commission's rules regarding significantly viewed waivers.n However, Time
Warner asserts that its opposition to Petitioners' petition is not a general challenge of the Commission's
rules in this area or the methodology developed over time by case law.73 Rather, Time Warner states, it
merely opposes the manner by which Petitioners have utilized such methodology herein by relying on
flawed data.74 As a result, Time Warner maintains, the factual circumstances of WTVG are in clear
contrast to those in the present case.7
13. In a second supplement, Time Warner references a recently-released Commission
decision, WISN Heast-Argyle Television, Inc., which denied a request for waiver of the significantly
viewed exception due to questions about the reliability of the data submitted in support of the waiver
request.76 Specifically, notes Time Warner, WISN stated that data for the November 2005 sweeps period,
based on only one in-tab household, is "an extremely unreliable statistic since it is based on the viewing
66d. at 3.
67Reply to Supplement at 1-2, citing 47 C.F.R. 76.7(d).
68Petitioners' Supplement at 1, citing 25 FCC Rcd 12263 (2010) ("WTVG").
691d. at 1-2.
701d. at 2.
7tReply to Supplement at 1-2.
7Id. at 2.
751d. at 3.
76 Time Warner Supplement at 2, citing 26 FCC Red 4044 (2011) ("WISN").
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/m1/61/: accessed June 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.