2014_0616_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PUBLIC DOCUMENT-TRADE SECRET DATA HAS BEEN EXCISED Comcast of Minnesota Page 26 legislative history to the Cable Act points out, "it is not intended that ... the operator ... respond to every person or group that expresses an interest in any particular capability or service. Rather, the operator's responsibility is to provide those facilities and services which can be shown to be in the interests of the community to receive in view of the costs thereof."61 Because franchise renewal is a quasi judicial exercise, the NSCC should not only focus on the communities' real and actual needs and their costs and benefits, but should also only consider reliable studies in its related decision- making. If the NSCC considers survey research, for example, that research must follow basic research standards and methodologies.62 Here, the surveys conducted by Buske and Group W, along with Buske's inferences therefrom, violate basic standards of survey methodology. The NSCC Staff Report and the RFRP itself are made without support or cited with comments from the flawed memorandum from the Buske Group dated July 15, 2013 ("the Buske memo"). The community needs are also often redundantly and confusingly presented in the many and various sections of the RFRP, the Staff Report, and the NSCC's related consultant studies. As outlined in the attached Rebuttal Report of Talmey-Drake Research, Buske's report and the Group W survey do not pass basic scientific scrutiny.63 Specific issues include the following: • The telephone survey features several sampling errors, including an absence of cell-phone only respondents, that greatly affect the outcome of the survey; • The telephone survey does not set any kind of quota for assuring interviews within each member-city community; • The telephone survey makes the basic error of identifying the sponsor and questioner before the interview begins; 61. H.R. Rep. No. 98-934, at 74 (1984) ("House Report"), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.AN. 4655, 4711; see also Union CATV, Inc. v. Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434, 440 (6th Cir. 1997). 62. See Minn. R. Evid. 702 (specified knowledge must "have foundational reliability"); Minn. Stat. � 14.60, subd. 1(excluding evidence that is "incompetent" in administrative proceedings); Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he spirit of Daubert ... does apply to [quasi-judicial] administrative proceedings."); see also Malletier v. Doone� £� Bourke, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 558, 563 (S.DN.Y. 2007) (survey evidence can be excluded where flaws cumulatively undermine its relevance and reliability). 63. See Exhibit 4.