My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0616_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0616_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:54:21 PM
Creation date
6/12/2014 2:23:44 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 27 <br />PUBLIC DOCUMENT—TRADE SECRET DATA HAS BEEN EXCISED <br />Proposal for Formal Franchise Renewal <br />December 20, 2013 <br />• The telephone survey features several questions that are misleading, <br />uninterpretable, or likely to be misinterpreted; <br />• The telephone survey report is missing any information about important <br />controls and procedures undertaken to assure accurate results. <br />Buske also distorts the numbers to make PEG viewership appear higher. Again <br />as outlined in Talmey-Drake's critique, Buske presents viewership of PEG <br />channels but only from a sub-sample of people who stated they watch PEG <br />programming and not all cable subscribers. Thus monthly viewership of <br />channels 14, 15, or 16 would be 22.8%, and weekly viewership would be 9.3%. <br />Weekly viewership of channels 18, 19, and 20 would be 4.3%, for channel 21 <br />would be .08%, and for channel 98 it would be 1.8%.64 Accordingly, the <br />following table shows how many never watch these channels:65 <br />Channel Buske: Amount Rescaled <br />that never watch <br />Channels 14,15 & 16 3.5 % 52.2 % <br />Channels 18,19 & 20 36.4 % 68.5 % <br />Channe121 72.2 % 86.3 % <br />Channe198 68.7% 84.5 % <br />Also as shown by the Talmey-Drake critique, statistical standards dictate <br />that Buske's focus group is not projectable to the member-city communities. <br />And the focus group process featured its own deep flaws, such as providing <br />information and goals to respondents before the survey and phrasing questions <br />awkwardly or in a results-oriented manner.66 <br />The NSCC, through the Staff Report, its consultants' reports, and the <br />RFRP, give inadequate attention to the costs involved in meeting various NSCC <br />demands. This inattention is improper, as the Sixth Circuit made clear in <br />Sturgis: "In determining whether [a] proposal is reasonable, [an LFA] must take <br />into account the cost of ineeting each need. In order to do so, it must weigh the <br />importance of the need against the cost."67 <br />But even with the flaws in the Buske and Group W reports, Group W's <br />survey results cannot avoid the fact that the biggest issue for customers is <br />64. Ex. 4 at 24. <br />65. Id. at 24-25. <br />66. Id. <br />67. Sturgis, 107 F.3d at 440. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.