Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf 
of subsidiaries and affiliates
Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in 107 Franchise Areas in New 
Jersey
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CSR 7588-E
CSR 7589-E
CSR 7590-E
CSR 7591-E
CSR 7592-E
CSR 7800-E
CSR 7801-E
CSR 7803-E
CSR 7804-E
CSR 7805-E
CSR 7818-E
CSR 7865-E
CSR 7866-E
CSR 7867-E
CSR 7868-E
CSR 7869-E
CSR 7870-E
CSR 7872-E
CSR 7877-E
CSR 7885-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  February 18, 2009 Released:  February 19, 2009
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of subsidiaries and affiliates, 
hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” has filed with the Commission a petition pursuant to Sections 76.7, 
76.905(b)(1), 76.905(b)(2), 76.905(b)(4) and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules for determinations that 
Petitioner is subject to effective competition in those franchise areas listed on the Attachments hereto.  
Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving those franchise areas listed in Attachment A hereto and 
hereinafter referred to as the “Attachment A Communities” are subject to effective competition pursuant 
to Section 623(1)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”)1 and 
the Commission’s implementing rules,2 and are therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the 
Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) 
providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) and Dish Network (“Dish”).  Petitioner also claims to be 
exempt from cable rate regulation in the three Communities listed on Attachment B, hereinafter referred 
to as the “Attachment B Communities,” because the Petitioner serves fewer than 30 percent of the 
households in those Communities.  Petitioner finally claims that it is exempt from cable rate regulation in 
the Communities listed on Attachment C, hereinafter referred to as the “Attachment C Communities,” 
because of the competing service provided by Verizon New Jersey, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 
“Competitor.”
2. All the petitions are opposed by the Division of Rate Counsel (the “DRC”) of the 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B).
2 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
2
Department of the Public Advocate of the Board of Public Utilities of the State of New Jersey (the 
“BPU”).  In addition, individual oppositions were filed by the Townships of Lumberton and Mount Holly, 
two Communities in CSR 7877-E.  The Township of Lumberton makes specific arguments against the 
Petition in CSR 7877-E;3 the Township of Mount Holly generally states its support for the DRC’s 
arguments.4 Petitioner filed a reply to every opposition but the Township of Mount Holly’s.    
3. Petitioner has requested permission to withdraw one Community in CSR 7872-E 
(Lyndhurst, NJ0297) and one in CSR 7885-E (Fairfield, NJ0186) from consideration herein without 
prejudice to their later re-submission.5 The DRC does not object, and we grant Petitioner’s request.
4. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be 
subject to effective competition,6 as that term is defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and 
Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.7 The cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the 
presumption that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition is present 
within the relevant franchise area.8 For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petitions based on our 
finding that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the Communities listed on Attachments A, B, 
and C.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Competing Provider Test
5. Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if the franchise area is (a) served by at least two unaffiliated multi-channel video 
programming distributors (“MVPDs”) each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 
percent of the households in the franchise area; and (b) the number of households subscribing to 
programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD exceeds 15 percent of the 
households in the franchise area;9 this test is otherwise referred to as the “competing provider” test.
6. The first prong of this test has three elements:  the franchise area must be “served by” at 
least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer at least “50 percent” of the households in the franchise area 
“comparable programming.”10
7. Turning to the first prong, it is undisputed that the Attachment A Communities are 
“served by” both DBS providers, DIRECTV and Dish, and that these two MVPD providers are 
unaffiliated with Petitioner or with each other.  A franchise area is considered “served by” an MVPD if 
that MVPD’s service is both technically and actually available in the franchise area.  DBS service is 
presumed to be technically available due to its nationwide satellite footprint, and presumed to be actually 
  
3 See ¶ 9 infra.
4 Letter from Brian M. Guest, Esq., Parker McCay, counsel for the Township of Mount Holly, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Commission Secretary, dated July 24, 2008.
5 Motion to Withdraw Lyndhurst, New Jersey, from Petition for Special Relief, filed by Petitioner on Aug. 7, 2008; 
Motion to Withdraw Fairfield, New Jersey, from Petition for Special Relief, filed by Petitioner on July 3, 2008.
6 47 C.F.R. § 76.906.
7 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l) and 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
8 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.906 & 907.
9 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
10 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
3
available if households in the franchise area are made reasonably aware of the service's availability.11  
The Commission has held that a party may use evidence of penetration rates in the franchise area (the 
second prong of the competing provider test discussed below) coupled with the ubiquity of DBS services 
to show that consumers are reasonably aware of the availability of DBS service.12 Petitioner’s assertion 
that both DIRECTV and Dish offer service to at least “50 percent” of the households in the Attachment A 
Communities because of their national satellite footprint is undisputed.13  
8. The “comparable programming” element of the first prong is satisfied if a competing 
MVPD provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of 
nonbroadcast service programming14 and is supported in the petitions with copies of channel lineups for 
both DIRECTV and Dish.15 In CSR 7877-E, the Township of Lumberton (NJ 0389), through its Mayor, 
makes an argument that we interpret as going to whether the DBS providers’ programming is comparable 
to Petitioner’s. The Mayor alleges that many of that Township’s residents enjoy watching Philadelphia 
sports teams.16 The Mayor appears to believe that those teams can be seen only on Petitioner’s cable 
service, and are not available on the DBS providers’ services.  The Mayor claims that Petitioner therefore 
has a “monopoly or something approaching a monopoly on the broadcast of the majority of local 
professional sports games in the Philadelphia market.”17 The Mayor concludes that, therefore, Petitioner 
lacks effective competition in Lumberton.18  
9. We find that the Township of Lumberton’s argument lacks merit.  As noted in the 
preceding paragraph, all that is necessary for the programming to be “comparable” is that it offer at least 
12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming.  
The presence or absence of any kind of program content, even popular local sports, is not material.  It also 
appears that local sports are available to households in Lumberton in some packages offered by the DBS 
providers.19 Accordingly, we cannot give weight to the Township of Lumberton’s allegations and we find 
the DBS providers’ programming to be comparable to Petitioner’s.  Accordingly we conclude that the 
first prong of the competing provider test is satisfied, both in Lumberton and the other Attachment A 
Communities. 
10. The second prong of the competing provider test requires that the number of households 
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceed 15 percent of the households in a franchise 
area.  Petitioner asserts, without objection from the DRC, that it is the largest MVPD in all the 
  
11 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7800-E at 3; Petition in CSR 7801-E at 3; Petition in CSR 7803-E at 3.
12 Mediacom Illinois LLC, 21 FCC Rcd 1175, 1176, ¶ 3 (2006).
13 See Petition in CSR 7867-E at 2-3; Petition in CSR 7868-E at 3; Petition in CSR 7869-E at 2-3.
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also, e.g., Petition in CSR 7804-E at 4; Petition in CSR 7805-E at 4; Petition in 
CSR 7818-E at 4.  
15 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7865-E at Exh. 1; Petition in CSR 7866-E at Exh. 1; Petition in CSR 7867-E at Exh. 1.
16 Affidavit of Patrick Delany, Mayor of Lumberton Township at ¶¶ 11-12 (dated June 26, 2008), attached to 
Comment & Opposition to Petition for Special Relief Filed by Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, filed by the 
Township of Lumberton on June 26, 2008.
17 Id. at ¶ 21.
18 Id. at ¶ 22.
19 Expert Satellite, Lumberton, New Jersey DIRECTV Offers & Information, http://www.expertsatellite.com/direct-
tv-lumberton-new-jersey (“Local sports teams in Lumberton.  Catch the best local sports action in Lumberton.  
Philadelphia Eagles.  Philadelphia Flyers.  Philadelphia Phillies.”), visited Oct. 8, 2008; Dish Network, 
http://snl.jt.org/dishnetwork/dish-network-lumberton-nj.html (“When you upgrade to America’s Top 120, . . . you 
can take advantage of your regional sports network”), visited Oct. 8, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
4
Attachment A Communities.20 Petitioner sought to determine the competing provider penetration in the 
Attachment A Communities by purchasing a subscriber tracking report from the Satellite Broadcasting 
and Communications Association (“SBCA”) that identified the number of subscribers attributable to the 
DBS providers within the Attachment A Communities on a five-digit zip code basis.21
11. The aggregate DBS subscriber penetration levels that were calculated using Census 2000 
household data22 (and, in one Community, a 2006 Census estimate23) as reflected in Attachment A, 
indicate that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by MVPDs, other 
than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in the Attachment A Communities.  This 
evidence, if unrefuted, satisfies the second prong of the competing provider test for each of the 
Attachment A Communities.24
1. The DRC’s Objections
12. The DRC makes several objections to Petitioner’s calculations.  Some objections apply to 
how Petitioner calculated the numerators of its ratios, and others to their denominators.  Some apply to all 
the Attachment A Communities, and others only to individual ones.
General Objections
13. Timeliness of Data. The DRC objects that Petitioner’s calculations use DBS subscriber 
numbers from 2007 or 2008 and household data from 2000 (and, in one case, 2006).  The DRC argues 
that the Census-derived household data is stale and that Petitioner’s subscribership and household data 
should be contemporaneous with each other and the date on which the Petition that contains it is filed.25  
We disagree with the DRC.  The use of the most recent Census count of “households,” while allowing for 
the use of more recent and equally or more reliable household counts, is a practice that we authorized 
early in litigation about effective competition.26  Petitioner submitted such data (the most recent available 
  
20 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7870-E at 5; Petition in CSR 7872-E at 5; Petition in CSR 7877-E at 5.
21 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7885-E at 4-7; Petition in CSR 7800-E at 4-7; Petition in CSR 7801-E at 4-7. 
22 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7803-E at 6-7; Petition in CSR 7804-E at 6-7; Petition in CSR 7805-E at 6-7.
23 The Community in question is Camden, NJ0388.  Petition in CSR 7877-E, Exh. 7 at 14.  Petitioner estimates DBS 
subscribership at 3,979 ÷ 24,271, or 16.39%. 
24 In its replies, Petitioner has supplied DBS subscribership estimates using DBS subscriber numbers that are more 
recent than those in its petitions.  This is not necessary and we do not rely on the more recent data.  In the vast 
majority of cases, however, DBS subscribership has increased based on the more recent data; in no case has it fallen 
below the statutory minimum.  Compare, e.g., Petition in CSR 7865-E, Exh. 5, with Reply in CSR 7865-E, Exh. B; 
Petition in CSR 7870-E, Exh. 5, with Reply in CSR 7870-E, Exh. B; Petition in CSR 7885-E, Exh. 6, with Reply in 
CSR 7885-E, Exh. D.
25 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7800-E at 4; Comments in CSR 7801-E at 4-5; Comments in CSR 7803-E at 4.
26 Cable Operators’ Petitions for Reconsideration & Revocation of Franchising Authorities’ Certifications to 
Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates, Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3656, ¶ 2(3) (1994): 
“With respect to household data, we realize that in many cases 1990 census data represents the 
most recent data available.  Accordingly, we believe that 1990 census data is an appropriate 
measure of households.  Operators that have access to more recent data may submit such 
information if they so choose.”
See also Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 08-2217 (“Cablevision 
New Jersey 101”) at ¶ 13 (rel. Oct. 2, 2008), available at 2008 WL 4449658 (“the most recent available Census data 
may be used to show the number of households in a community”); Cablevision of Rockland/Ramapo Inc., 22 FCC 
Rcd 11487, 11493, ¶ 16 (2007); Cablevision of Raritan Valley, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 6966, 6968, ¶ 6 (2004) (“2000 
Census data is sufficiently reliable for effective competition determinations”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
5
Census data) here and that sustained its initial burden of proof about household numbers in each 
Attachment A Community.  We have also stated that we will accept more recent household numbers that 
are at least as reliable as Census numbers,27 but the DRC has submitted no such numbers here. In many 
decisions, including involving the State of New Jersey, we have found competing provider effective 
competition to exist based on household and DBS subscribership data that are several years apart in 
time.28 Accordingly, we conclude that the DRC’s general allegations about the timeliness of the data 
submitted by Petitioner reveal no flaw in the petitions.
14. We also dismiss the DRC’s advocacy of a “complete when filed” rule, which apparently 
would prohibit late-filed updates to Petitioner’s data, and which the DRC advocates in the course of its 
argument that Petitioner’s data is stale.29 In previous proceedings, the DRC advocated such a rule as a 
procedural one, and we adopt the analysis by which we declined to follow it in those proceedings.30 In 
addition, no updates to the data in the petitions were necessary, so the petitions herein were complete 
when filed.
15. Cancellations. The DRC objects that Petitioner’s estimates of DBS subscribership do not 
account for cancellations of DBS service after the dates on which SBCA estimated subscribership and 
before each Petition was filed.31 Attached to the DRC’s comments are publications that, the DRC says, 
show “a steady decline in satellite subscribership in 2007.”32 We find no merit in the DRC’s objection, 
which we recently rejected in another proceeding.33 The available evidence shows that DBS 
subscribership, as a percentage of subscription to all MVPD services, generally has increased over time 
(that is, new subscriptions have outnumbered cancellations).34 Indeed, the very publications the DRC 
attaches to its Comments state that DBS subscriber numbers grew steadily in absolute terms, and did not 
decline, in 2007.35 Accordingly, we decline the DRC’s request that we fault Petitioner for not making 
  
27 Adelphia Cable Commun., 22 FCC Rcd 4458, 4462, ¶ 14 (2007); Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 
4390, 4393, ¶ 11 (2007); Bright House Networks, LLC, 22 FCC Rcd 4161, 4165, ¶ 11 (2007).
28 See, e.g., Cablevision New Jersey 101, supra note 26; Time Warner Cable Inc., 23 FCC Rcd 12210, 12214, ¶ 15 
(2008) (accepting 2000 Census data and 2007 DBS subscribership data); Jones Intercable, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7254, 
7256, n.12, ¶ 5 (2000) (using 1990 Census despite the fact that it was nearly a decade old); Tel-Com, Inc., 11 FCC 
Rcd 9153, n.36, 9159, ¶ 11 (1996) (1996 decision using 1990 Census data).
29 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7800-E at 5 (“A ‘complete when filed’ rule is necessary in order to weigh supporting 
data of even date”).  
30 Cablevision New Jersey 101, supra note 26, at ¶¶ 21-22.    
31 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7801-E at 6; Comments in CSR 7803-E at 5; Comments in CSR 7804-E at 5.
32 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7805-E at 5; Comments in CSR 7818-E at 5; Comments in CSR 7866-E at 6.
33 Cablevision New Jersey 101, supra note 26, at ¶ 15.    
34 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Twelfth 
Annual Report, 21 FCC Rcd 2503, 2617 (2006) (showing annual growth in the percent of MVPD subscribers 
receiving DBS service, rising to 28% in the most recent reported year).
35 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7800-E at Exh. A, which consists of several company announcements and securities 
analyses, including EchoStar Reports First Quarter 2007 Financial Results (“DISH Network(tm) added 
approximately 310,000 net new subscribers during the first quarter of 2007”); EchoStar Reports Second Quarter 
2007 Financial Results (“DISH Network(r) service added approximately 170,000 net new subscribers during the 
second quarter of 2007”); EchoStar Reports Third Quarter 2007 Financial Results (“DISH Network(r) service . . . 
added approximately 110,000 net new subscribers during the third quarter of 2007”); EchoStar Reports Fourth 
Quarter 2007 Financial Results (“DISH Network added approximately 85,000 net new subscribers during the 
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007”); DIRECTV Investors Day (DIRECTV “[e]xpects 17.5 million [subscribers] by year 
end . . .  DIRECTV has 16.8 million subscribers”); Cable360Net, Satellite in the Slow Lane? (predicting growth, 
albeit slow, for DBS); Lisa Daniel, Subscriber Bases: Quantity or Quality, SATELLITE TODAY (Sept. 1, 2008) (“The 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
6
post-Petition updates of cancellations of DBS service.
16. Requests for Petitioner’s “Analysis and Work Papers.” The DRC objects that Petitioner’s 
filings did not include “the analysis and work papers that underlie and support its calculation of satellite 
penetration percentage.”36 Without the analysis and papers, the DRC says, it cannot examine, verify, and 
challenge the underlying numbers from which Petitioner’s household and DBS subscriber numbers were 
derived.37 We have rejected this objection before38 and we affirm that rejection, but here the DRC cites 
for the first time several Court of Appeals decisions.  The decisions reversed regulatory agencies, 
including this Commission, for not allowing interested parties to examine calculations the agencies made 
and used as the bases for new regulations.39 The DRC argues that, as in those cases, it would be 
reversible error for the Commission to rule on the present petitions without allowing it to examine all the 
analysis and work papers Petitioner used in preparing its case.
17. What Petitioner filed herein are all the numbers of DBS subscribers and households, the 
calculations by which Petitioner used those numbers to estimate DBS subscribership in the Attachment A 
Communities, and detailed statements by Media Business Corporation (“MBC”) and SBCA describing 
how they derived the numbers that Petitioner used.  These appear to be all the numbers of households and 
DBS subscribers with which Petitioner estimated competing provider effective competition.  We have 
accepted these statements and kinds of numbers in scores of earlier competing provider effective 
competition decisions.  The DRC reveals no significant omission, technical flaw or analytical 
unsoundness in either the numbers, their derivation, or the calculations made with them; and gives no 
indication of what additional “underlying data,” assuming that there are any, would have added in 
substance to the record before the Bureau.  
18. The Court of Appeals decisions cited by the DRC are inapposite on several grounds.  
First, those decisions found that regulators had failed to comply with the notice-and-comment 
requirements of Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act.40 That Section applies only to 
rulemakings, however, and this proceeding is an adjudication, to which Section 5 is inapplicable.  Second, 
the calculations that the courts reversed the regulators for not making available were calculations by the 
regulatory agencies themselves.41 The information and analysis that the DRC seeks here, however, are by 
Petitioner or its independent contractors (MBC and SBCA).  Third, the calculations involved in the 
  
(...continued from previous page)
leader in satellite’s trend toward higher-paying subscribers is . . . DIRECTV, analysts say.  . . . .  DIRECTV posted 
its lowest churn rate in three years in the first quarter of this year.  . . .  EchoStar is adding subscribers . . .  Cable has 
not added subscribers in several years and their penetration rate is declining because of satellite,” according to one 
analyst).
36 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7865-E at 6; Comments in CSR 7866-E at 6; Comments in CSR 7869-E at 6.
37 Id.
38 Cablevision New Jersey 101, supra note 26, at ¶¶ 19-20.    
39 American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Ass’n, Inc. v. FMCSA, 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
40 5 U.S.C. § 553(b-c).
41 American Radio Relay League, Inc., 524 F.3d at 236 (“More persuasive is the League's contention that the 
Commission has failed to comply with the APA by not disclosing in full certain studies by its staff upon which the 
Commission relied in promulgating the rule”) (italics added); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n, Inc., 494 
F.3d at 202 (“we cannot say that the agency's operator-fatigue model was ‘made public in the proceeding and 
exposed to refutation’ as required by the APA”) (italics added); Solite Corp., 952 F.2d at 500 (“We hold that EPA's 
determination that lightweight aggregate air pollution control dust/sludge does not meet the high volume criteria 
violated notice and comment requirements”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
7
decisions that the DRC cites led to new regulations or changes in existing regulations.42 As noted in the 
preceding paragraph, the information that the DRC seeks here is of the same kind, and the calculations are 
by the same formulas, that we have used in scores of previous effective competition decisions.43 The 
DRC gives us no reason to suspect them.  
19. We agree wholeheartedly that the data on which we base our decisions should be made 
available for analysis by commenting parties.  Petitioner has made that data available, in the Exhibits to 
its Petitions.  The DRC has simply asked for more, without any specific indication that more exists, 
would reveal an error, or would otherwise be helpful to efficient, pro-consumer regulation.  
Specific Objections 
20. In CSR 7800-E, concerning Jersey City (NJ0558), the DRC objects that Petitioner’s 
count of DBS subscribers omitted those in one zip code (07311) that it should have included.44 Petitioner 
answers that that zip code is entirely included within another, 07302, which it did include.45 Petitioner 
appears to be correct, and we accept its answer.  We also note that, in this and other instances of alleged 
omissions of zip codes addressed in the following paragraphs, if Petitioner erroneously omitted a zip code 
from its calculation of DBS subscriber numbers in an Attachment A Community, that error would reduce 
the number of DBS subscribers and would weaken Petitioner’s showing of competing provider effective 
competition there.  Petitioner has no incentive to weaken its own case, and it does not appear to have done 
so with the zip codes in question.  If it did, however, the DRC would not be prejudiced; indeed, only 
Petitioner’s showing would suffer.
21. In CSR 7801-E, concerning Plainfield (NJ0126), the DRC objects that Petitioner’s count 
of DBS subscribers omitted those in one zip code (07069) that it should have included and included those 
in another zip code (08812) that it should have excluded.46 The source of the DRC’s objection is a 
service on the United States Postal Service’s (“USPS’s”) web page that associates zip codes with place 
names.47 The USPS’s service identifies one or more place names with which a zip code is primarily 
identified for purposes of mail delivery.  It does not, however, purport to precisely track what is important 
for measuring competing provider effective competition, namely the political boundaries of New Jersey’s 
many municipalities.  Thus, the zip code 07069 is primarily associated by the USPS, in the web page the 
DRC uses, with Plainfield for mail delivery and yet includes no part of the political entity named the City 
of Plainfield;48 and the zip code 08812 is associated with Dunellen and Green Brook for purposes of mail 
  
42 American Radio Relay League, Inc., 524 F.3d at 232; Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n, Inc., 494 F.3d 
at 193 (“the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to give interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the methodology of the crash-risk model that the agency used to justify an increase in 
the maximum number of daily and weekly hours that truck drivers may drive and work.”) (italics added); Solite 
Corp., 952 F.2d at 499.
43 Cf. Solite Corp., 952 F.2d at 485 (“because EPA's methodology remained constant, and because the added data 
was used to check or confirm prior assessments, we hold that the Agency did not violate the notice and comment 
provisions of the APA”).
44 Comments in CSR 7800-E at 7.
45 Reply in CSR 7800-E at 6.
46 Comments in CSR 7801-E at 7-8.
47 Id., Exhs. C & D.
48 Another USPS web page lists Plainfield as an “Acceptable City name” for zip code 07069.  USPS – Zip Code 
Lookup – Find a City by ZIP Code Results, http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_3_results.jsp (visited Oct. 14, 2008).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
8
delivery but includes a small part of the City of Plainfield.49 Petitioner’s method of associating zip codes 
with New Jersey municipalities’ precise boundaries50 is more nuanced, for our purposes in these 
decisions, than the particular USPS web page that the DRC relies on.  Accordingly, it appears that 
Petitioner correctly included and excluded these zip codes in estimating DBS subscriber numbers in its 
Plainfield franchise area in CSR-7801-E.  
22. The DRC makes the same kind of objections, and Petitioner makes the same kind of 
convincing response, in CSR 7804-E about the omission of seven zip codes for Trenton (NJ0478);51 in 
CSR 7805-E about the treatment of parts of one zip code for Carney’s Point (NJ0537);52 in CSR 7818-E 
about the omission of one zip code and the inclusion of two zip codes for Ocean (NJ0216);53 in CSR 
7866-E about Petitioner’s allocation of parts of one zip code between two Attachment A Communities 
(Long Branch (NJ0436) and West Long Branch (NJ0157));54 in CSR 7867-E about Petitioner’s inclusion 
of parts of three zip codes in Clayton (NJ0368);55 in CSR 7868-E about Petitioner’s inclusion of part of 
one zip code in High Bridge (NJ0078), parts of three zip codes in Lebanon (NJ0041), parts of three zip 
codes in Liberty (NJ0502), and part of one zip code in Oxford (NJ0116);56 in CSR 7877-E about 
Petitioner’s inclusion of part of one zip code in Camden (NJ0388), parts of five zip codes in Chesterfield 
(NJ0395), and part of one zip code in Lumberton (NJ0389);57 and, in CSR 7885-E about Petitioner’s 
inclusion of part of one zip code in Irvington (NJ0164), one in Orange (NJ0202), two in Perth Amboy 
(NJ0350), one in Roselle Park (NJ0247), one in Union (NJ0222), and one in Woodbridge (NJ0329).58  
After a thorough review of the arguments of the DRC and the responses of Petitioner, we conclude that in 
all these Attachment A Communities Petitioner has correctly estimated DBS subscriber numbers and the 
DRC has failed to find flaws in them.  
Conclusion
23. Based upon the subscribership levels for the DBS providers that are reflected in 
Attachment A, and despite the general and specific objections made by the DRC, we find that Petitioner 
has demonstrated that the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by 
MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in the Attachment A 
Communities.  Therefore, the second prong of the competing provider test is satisfied for each of the 
  
49 Reply in CSR 7801-E at 6-7; id. at Exh. B (associating 1.08% of zip code 08812 with Plainfield); id., Exh. C  
(Affidavit of K. Pinna Gallant, Senior Vice President, Product Marketing, MBC, at ¶ 4 (dated June 12, 2008)).
50 See note 21 supra.
51 Comments in CSR 7804-E at 6-7; id., Exhs. B, C; Reply in CSR 7804-E at 6-7; id., Exhs. B, D, E. 
52 Comments in CSR 7805-E at 7; id., Exh. B; Reply in CSR 7805-E at 6-7; id., Exhs. B-D.  
The DRC, in its Comments in CSR 7805-E (and those in CSR 7866-E, CSR 7867-E, CSR 7868-E, and CSR 
7885-E) also notes that names that the USPS service gives certain zip codes for mailing purposes are also listed by 
the New Jersey BPU as separate franchise areas.  See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7805-E, Exh. B (“Cable Facts 2007,” 
a publication of the BPU’s Office of Cable Television).  This is immaterial; a single zip code may include all or 
parts of two or more franchise areas because, as noted in the text above, zip code boundaries do not always coincide 
precisely with municipal boundaries or with popular names associated with them. 
53 Comments in CSR 7818-E at 6-7; id., Exhs. B, C; Reply in CSR 7818-E at 6-7; id., Exhs. B-E.
54 Comments in CSR 7866-E at 7-8; id., Exhs. C, D; Reply in CSR 7866-E at 5-7; id., Exhs. B, C.
55 Comments in CSR 7867-E at 7-8; id., Exhs. C, D; Reply in CSR 7867-E at 5-7; id., Exhs. B, C.
56 Comments in CSR 7868-E at 7-8; id., Exhs. C-E; Reply in CSR 7868-E at 5-8; id., Exhs. B, C. 
57 Comments in CSR 7877-E at 7-8; id., Exhs. C, D; Reply in CSR 7877-E at 5-8; id., Exhs. B, C.  
58 Comments in CSR 7885-E at 7-8; id., Exhs. C, D; Reply in CSR 7867-E at 6-8; id., Exhs. D, E.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
9
Attachment A Communities.  Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that both prongs of the competing provider test are satisfied in the Communities listed on 
Attachment A and that Petitioner is subject to effective competition there.
B. The Low Penetration Test
24. Section 623(l)(1)(A) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if the Petitioner serves “fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise 
area”;59 this test is otherwise referred to as the “low penetration” test.  Petitioner alleges that it is subject
to effective competition under the low penetration effective competition test in the three Attachment B 
Communities because it serves less than 30 percent of the households there.60 Petitioner’s calculations, in 
particular, show that its own subscribership amounts to 2 percent of the households in Mount Olive 
(NJ0012),61 16.78 percent in New Hanover (NJ0392), and 14.59 percent in Woodland (NJ0596).62
1. The DRC’s Objections
25. The DRC makes two general objections to Petitioner’s showings of low penetration 
effective competition.  The first is to Petitioner’s use of 2008 data for its own subscribers and 2000 
Census data for the number of households.63 This is the same objection that the DRC made to Petitioner’s 
data showing competing provider effective competition, and we dismiss it for the reasons stated in 
paragraphs 13-14 above.64
26. The DRC’s second objection to Petitioner’s showings is that Petitioner has failed to show 
that its plant passes all the homes in its franchise area and/or that there is another cable operator there.65  
The DRC seems to assume that low penetration effective competition is premised on the existence of a 
second cable operator throughout the petitioner’s franchise area to whom subscribers to petitioner’s 
service can turn in the event of a price increase.  This is incorrect; Section 623(l)(1)(A) states no such 
requirement, and we discern none that is implicit in the statute.  The statute requires only household 
penetration of less than 30 percent in the petitioner’s franchise area, and there is no dispute that Petitioner 
has shown that in each of the Attachment B Communities.  
27. The DRC briefly alludes to a line of cases in which franchise authorities showed that 
cable operators had made affirmative decisions, confirmed by their own conduct, to serve less than the 
whole area granted in their franchises, in which cases we measured effective competition in the lesser 
areas.66 The DRC has not attempted to make such a showing in this case, however, and therefore cannot 
invoke those cases’ holdings.
  
59 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(A).
60 Petition in 7868-E at 8; Petition in CSR 7877-E at 8.
61 Petition in 7868-E at 8.
62 Petition in 7877-E at Exh. 8.  Petitioner states incorrect percentages at page 8 of its Petition.
63 Comments in 7868-E at 8-9; Comments in 7877-E at 8-9.
64 The DRC notes a Census Bureau estimate that Mount Olive’s number of households has grown since 2000 
(Comments in 7868-E at Exh. F), but that would make Petitioner’s penetration even lower than as stated by 
Petitioner. 
65 Comments in 7868-E at 9; Comments in 7877-E at 8-9.
66 Comments in 7868-E n.22 at 9, citing Comcast of Greater Florida/Georgia, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 4588, 4589-90, ¶ 6 
(2007).  See also, e.g., Cablevision of Paterson, 17 FCC Rcd 17239, 17240-41, ¶¶ 2-4 (2002); Century Cable of 
Northern California, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 18604, 18606-08, ¶¶ 4, 6-7 (1999); TKR Cable of Northern Kentucky, 11 
FCC Rcd 9973, 9982, ¶ 20 (1996) Cecilton CATV, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2937, 2939, ¶ 11 (1995).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
10
28. Based upon the subscriber penetration level calculated by Petitioner, as reflected in 
Attachment B, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated the percentage of households subscribing to its 
cable service is less than 30 percent of the households in the Communities listed on Attachment B.  
Therefore, the low penetration test is satisfied in the Attachment B Communities.
C. The LEC Test
29. Section 623(l)(1)(D) of the Communications Act provides that a cable operator is subject 
to effective competition if a local exchange carrier (“LEC”), or its affiliate, offers video programming 
services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise 
area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if 
the video programming services offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services 
provided by the competing unaffiliated cable operator.67 This test is otherwise referred to as the LEC test.  
Petitioner asserts that the cable service offered by Competitor (Verizon New Jersey, Inc.) satisfies the 
LEC test in the Attachment C Communities.  
30. The Commission has stated that the incumbent cable operator must show that the LEC 
intends to build out its cable system, in an area that substantially overlaps the incumbent cable operator’s, 
within a reasonable period of time if it has not completed its build-out; that no regulatory, technical or 
other impediments to household service exist; that the LEC is marketing its services so that potential 
customers are aware that the LEC’s services may be purchased; that the LEC has actually begun to 
provide services; the extent of such services; the ease with which service may be expanded; and the 
expected date for completion of construction in the franchise area.68  
31. It is undisputed that the Attachment C Communities are served by both Petitioner and 
Competitor, that Competitor is a LEC, and that these two MVPD providers are unaffiliated.  The 
“comparable programming” element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at least 12 channels of 
video programming, including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming69 and is 
supported in this petition with copies of channel lineups for Competitor.70 Finally, Petitioner has 
demonstrated that the Competitor has commenced providing video programming service within the 
Communities pursuant to its “system-wide” franchise,71 has marketed its services in a manner that makes 
potential subscribers reasonably aware of its services, and otherwise satisfied the LEC effective 
competition test consistent with the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Cable Reform Order.72
32. These showings, if unrefuted, would demonstrate that Petitioner’s cable systems serving 
  
67 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D).
68 See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd 5296, 
5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16 (1999) (“Cable Reform Order”).
69 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).  See also Petition in CSR 7588-E at 10-11.
70 See, e.g., Petition in CSR 7589-E at Exh. 11; Petition in CSR 7590-E at Exh. 11; Petition in CSR 7591-E at Exh. 11.
71 Under a New Jersey law enacted in 2006, a company may receive from the BPU “a system-wide franchise by 
constructing or operating a [cable] system at any location within the State in which the company, at the time of 
issuance of the system-wide franchise, either has plant or equipment in use for the provision of any consumer video, 
cable or telecommunications service, or has proposed to place such plant or equipment into use to provide such 
service.”  Evidently, Verizon’s system-wide franchise has the scope of the territory in which it has provided 
telecommunications service.  See The Assembly Telecommunications & Utilities Committee reports favorably 
Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly Bill No. 804, No. 804--L.2006, c.83 (May 11, 2006), printed in 
N.J.S.A. 48:5A-2.
72 See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305-06, ¶¶ 13-16.  See also, e.g., Petition in CSR 7592-E at 5-10 & 
Exhs. 7-9; Petition in CSR 7588-E at 5-10 & Exhs. 7-9; Petition in CSR 7589-E at 5-10 & Exhs. 7-9.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
11
the Communities listed on Attachment C have met the LEC test and are subject to effective competition.  
1. The DRC’s Objections
33. The DRC makes three general objections to Petitioner’s showings of LEC effective 
competition.  The first are legal.  The DRC objects that system-wide franchises were not contemplated 
when Congress enacted the statutory provision for LEC effective competition,73 and therefore no system-
wide franchise may lawfully be the basis for a finding of LEC effective competition.74 The DRC also 
bases this objection on our decision in Service Electric Cable TV of New Jersey,75 where the Commission 
refused to allow a cable operator to aggregate franchise areas, making it inconsistent to allow Petitioner to 
rely on Verizon’s system-wide franchise here.76 Finally, the DRC objects that, given the novelty of 
system-wide franchises, the Bureau may not lawfully rule on them as a basis for LEC effective 
competition findings until the Commission has ruled on them.77
34. Petitioner’s objections lack merit.  First, even if we assume that the applicable statute was 
enacted before system-wide franchises, that would not disable the statute from applying to such 
franchises.  The DRC has given us neither legislative history nor reasoning indicating that LEC 
competition may be found only with reference to types of franchises that existed at the statute’s 
enactment.  In fact, we have found LEC effective competition in previous cases based on a statewide 
franchise.78 Our decision in Service Electric Cable TV of New Jersey, relied on by the DRC, is not to the 
contrary.  That decision, which ruled on a competing provider test of effective competition rather than a 
LEC test, prohibited a cable operator from combining DBS subscribership data for many franchise areas 
in a single sum, attempting to thereby show subscribership in excess of 15 percent in all the franchise 
areas combined.  We required that the cable operator document subscribership counts based on a 
franchise by franchise basis.79  Service Electric Cable TV of New Jersey is not applicable in this case since 
it does not concern the LEC test, which we are addressing here.  Furthermore, issues of subscribership 
data do not even arise under the LEC test.  Rather, the elements of LEC effective competition are those 
stated in paragraphs 28 and 29 above.
35. The DRC’s second objection to Petitioner’s showing of LEC effective competition is that 
Competitor does not offer video programming that is “comparable” to Petitioner’s because Competitor’s 
programming does not yet include “public, government, and educational” or PEG channels.80 The DRC 
misunderstands our standard for what constitutes comparable programming for purposes of effective 
competition.  The comparable programming element is met if a competing MVPD provider offers at least 
12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of nonbroadcast service programming81
  
73 The provision, 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(D) was first enacted in 1996.  Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 
104-104 § 301(b)(3)(C), 110 Stat. 56, 115, approved Feb. 8, 1996.
74 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7590-E at 4-5; Comments in CSR 7591-E at 4-5; Comments in CSR 7592-E at 4-5.
75 Service Elec. Cable TV of New Jersey, Inc. (“Service Electric”), 20 FCC Rcd 20532 (2005). 
76 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7588-E at 5; Comments in CSR 7589-E at 5; Comments in CSR 7590-E at 5.
77 Id.
78 Cablevision Systems of Connecticut, L.P., 14 FCC Rcd 15883, 15884, ¶ 4 (1999); Cablevision Systems of 
Connecticut, L.P., 14 FCC Rcd 15253, 15254, ¶ 3 (1999).
79 Service Electric, 20 FCC Rcd at 20534, ¶ 6 (“the fact that Service Electric operates the 26 [franchises] as a single 
contiguous system is immaterial to our analysis.  The statute requires Service Electric to demonstrate effective 
competition in each franchise area.”) (internal quotations and footnote omitted).
80 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7589-E at 6-7; Comments in CSR 7590-E at 6-7; Comments in CSR 7591-E at 6-7.
81 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
12
and is supported in this petition with citations to the channel lineups for Competitor.82 There is no doubt 
that the petitions satisfy that standard.  Whether Competitor’s service is comparable for effective 
competition purposes does not depend on whether it includes PEG channels.83  
36. The DRC’s final objection to Petitioner’s showing of LEC effective competition is that 
Petitioner has not shown that Competitor has any subscribers for its video service.84 This is incorrect.  
Petitioner has shown that Competitor has subscribers in each Attachment C Community.85 Moreover, it is 
not necessary that Petitioner show that Competitor’s service has reached a certain level of subscribership 
in those Communities.86 In adopting the LEC competition test, Congress believed that a LEC would be a 
formidable competitor to an incumbent cable operator from its commencement of service in part of a 
community.87 Therefore, we have consistently required that a petitioner show only that a LEC has 
actually begun to provide service in areas that substantially overlap petitioner’s (which the DRC does not 
deny), that the LEC is marketing its services so that potential customers are aware of it, and that it intends 
to build out its cable system within a reasonable period of time if it has not already done so.88 Petitioner 
has shown that Competitor has done all these things, thus sustaining its burden of proof.  The DRC has 
not successfully refuted any of Petitioner’s evidence. 
  
82 See note 70 supra.
83 CoxCom, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 7134, 7142, ¶19 (1999) (“PEG programming is not one of the factors the Commission 
has indicated is germane in determining whether comparable programming is being offered by a competitor.”), 
reconsideration granted on other grounds, 15 FCC Rcd 728 (2000).
84 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7590-E at 7; Comments in CSR 7591-E at 7; Comments in CSR 7592-E at 7.
85 Petition in CSR 7588-E at Exh. 10 (Declaration of Marge Jackson, Vice President of Marketing for the Comcast 
New Jersey Region, that “there are former Comcast subscribers from each of the [Attachment C] Communities that 
have discontinued service since the beginning of [2007] for the stated reason that they were switching to Verizon’s 
competing cable service”); see also id. at Exh. 3 (Letter from Zedford D. Dancey, Assistant General Counsel, Video 
Services, Verizon, to Steven J. Horvitz, Esq., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, dated April 5, 2007, stating that “to the 
best of my knowledge, Verizon’s FiOS TV service is currently being offered to one or more residents” in each 
Attachment C Community).  
86 See Armstrong Commun., Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1039, 1043-44, ¶ 9 (2001) (LEC test does not specify any minimum 
amount of service to be offered by the LEC or include any penetration standards; it requires only that the offering be 
substantially more than de minimis); CoxCom, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 7134, 7143, ¶ 24 (1999) (“Congress did not include 
a pass or penetration test in the LEC effective competition standard and the Commission has not indicated that it 
would impose such a test”), reconsideration granted on other grounds, 15 FCC Rcd 728 (2000); Cable Reform 
Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5303, ¶ 10 (“we reject arguments that we should adopt penetration standards”).
The DRC misstates our decision in Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P., 13 FCC Rcd 9326 (1998), review denied, 16 FCC 
Rcd 15612 (2001), as holding that LEC effective competition requires “direct evidence of subscribership.”  
Comments in CSR 7589-E at 7; Comments in CSR 7590-E at 7; Comments in CSR 7591-E at 7.  Our Marcus Cable
decision noted that the cable operator indeed showed that the LEC had 50 subscribers for its service, but that that 
and other evidence failed to show that most consumers were “reasonably aware” of its availability.  Marcus Cable 
Assocs., L.P., 13 FCC Rcd at 9331, ¶ 14.
87 Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5302, ¶ 9 (“The thrust of the 1996 Act is Congress' expectation that LECs 
will be robust competitors of cable operators because of their financial and technical ability and . . . their ubiquitous 
presence in the market”) (footnote omitted); id. at 5303, ¶ 11 (noting with approval that “the Cable Services Bureau 
has found that a LEC's presence can have a competitive impact on a cable operator before the LEC finishes 
installing its plant or rolling out its service”); id. at 5304, ¶ 11 (noting “Congress' intent that the Commission have 
the discretion to consider the likelihood and extent of impending competition when considering whether effective 
competition exists under the LEC test.  Congress sought to restrain cable rates and stimulate quality cable services.  
Once the LEC's competitive presence is sufficient to achieve these goals, even if the LEC's buildout or roll out is not 
complete, the intent of the effective competition test has been met”).
88 Id., 14 FCC Rcd at 5303, ¶ 11, 5305, ¶ 13. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
13
37. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that its cable systems serving the Communities listed on Attachment C have met the LEC 
test and are subject to effective competition.
III. MISCELLANEOUS
38. In its Comments in several proceedings, the DRC observes that the Commission has rules 
requiring the payment of fees in connection with the petition and the listing of franchise areas in the 
petition.89 Because the DRC does not allege, much less substantiate, any specific violation of those rules 
by Petitioner, we find no significance in its observations.  The DRC also makes the additional and more 
specific objection in some proceedings that Petitioner erred in paying only one filing fee per cable system 
instead of one fee per Community.90 In support of its allegation, the DRC cites a Commission rule that 
does not exist.91 The DRC’s objection is mistaken.  Petitioner filed the correct amount of fees, which is 
one per cable system regardless of how many Communities are involved.92
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
39. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, on behalf of its 
subsidiaries and affiliates, ARE GRANTED.
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to any of the Communities set forth on Attachments A, B, and C IS REVOKED. 
41. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the
Commission’s rules.93
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
  
89 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7801-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7865-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7566-E at 5-6; 
Comments in CSR 7867-E at 5-6. 
90 See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7801-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7869-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7870-E at 5-6; 
Comments in CSR 7872-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7877-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7885-E at 5-6. 
91 Id., citing “Section 1.104(8)(g) of the FCC rules.”  47 C.F.R. § 1.104 of the Commission’s rules concerns 
“Preserving the right of review; deferred consideration of application for review” and has no subsection numbered 8 
or g.   Section 1.1104(9)(g) requires a fee with each Petition, but is silent about whether a fee is required for each 
system or each community.
92 Reminder as to Procedures for Filing Cable Television Effective Competition Petitions, Public Notice DA 05-921, 
20 FCC Rcd 7294 (2005) (“Although for the convenience of the filing parties multiple communities and multiple 
cable physical systems (‘PSIDs’) may be combined in a single filing, each PSID must be separately identified and a 
separate fee must be paid for each PSID”) (italics added); see also Cablevision New Jersey 101, supra note 26, at ¶ 
46; Comcast Cable Commun., LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order DA 08-1908 at ¶ 6 n.14 (rel. Aug. 14, 2008) 
(“Two petitions were filed because some of the Communities with different CUIDs numbers are on a separate 
Comcast cable system and required the filing of a separate filing fee”); CoxCom, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 4522, ¶ 1 n.1 
(2007) (“regulatory filing fees are assessed by cable system”).
93 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
14
ATTACHMENT A
CSR 7800-E, CSR 7801-E, CSR 7803-E, CSR 7804-E, CSR 7805-E, CSR 7818-E, CSR 7865-E, CSR 
7866-E, CSR 7867-E, CSR 7868-E, CSR 7869-E, CSR 7870-E, CSR 7872-E, CSR 7877-E, 
CSR 7885-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES OF 
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATONS, LLC
2000 Estimated 
  Census DBS
Communities CUID(s)   CPR* Households Subscribers
CSR 7800-E
Jersey City NJ0558 20.20% 88632 17901
CSR 7801-E
North Plainfield NJ0124 21.88% 7202 1576
Plainfield NJ0126 22.18% 15137 3358
South Plainfield NJ0130 26.28% 7151 1879
CSR 7803-E
Beachwood NJ0091 17.35% 3475 603
CSR 7804-E
Trenton NJ0478 20.42% 29437 6011
CSR 7805-E
Carneys Point NJ0537 21.07% 3121 658
Township
CSR 7818-E
Ocean Township NJ0216 24.89% 2446 609
CSR 7865-E
Cranbury NJ0437 36.18% 1091 395
East Brunswick NJ0021 18.86% 16372 3088
Jamesburg NJ0438 20.64% 2176 449
Spotswood NJ0440 20.09% 3099 623
CSR 7866-E
Atlantic Highlands NJ0363 16.57% 1969 326
Deal NJ0471 36.55% 434 159
Long Branch NJ0436 22.61% 12594 2847
West Long Branch NJ0157 17.60% 2448 431
CSR 7867-E
Clayton NJ0368 19.74% 2464 486
East Greenwich NJ0460 20.58% 1901 391
Paulsboro NJ0413 15.79% 2353 372
CSR 7868-E
Belvidere NJ0115 27.68% 1088 301
Califon NJ0555 28.48% 401 114
High Bridge NJ0078 24.19% 1428 346
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
15
2000 Estimated 
  Census DBS
Communities CUID(s)  CPR* Households Subscribers
CSR 7868-E (continued)
Lebanon NJ004194 27.84% 1963 547
Liberty NJ0502 36.67% 980 359
Oxford NJ0116 37.03% 886 328
White NJ0240 28.94% 1668 483
CSR 7869-E
Atlantic City NJ0006 15.13% 15848 2398
Bass River NJ0629 19.83% 548 109
Corbin City NJ0455 19.26% 172 33
Dennis NJ0454 16.79% 2159 362
Egg Harbor City NJ0528 17.11% 1658 284
Egg Harbor Township NJ0002 23.95% 11199 2682
Galloway NJ0415 17.17% 10772 1849
Hamilton NJ0332 23.49% 7148 1679
Pleasantville NJ0004 23.27% 6402 1489
Port Republic NJ0623 24.38% 365 89
Ventnor NJ0031 15.24% 5480 835
Weymouth NJ0583 51.92% 851 442
Woodbine NJ0466 18.65% 773 144
CSR 7870-E
Barnegat Light NJ0182 18.22% 371 68
Beach Haven NJ0016 20.92% 586 123
Long Beach NJ0018 21.35% 1664 355
Ship Bottom NJ0019 21.52% 664 143
Surf City NJ0020 20.36% 706 144
CSR 7872-E
Carlstadt NJ0296 22.86% 2393 547
East Newark NJ0300 32.90% 767 252
Wallington NJ0382 18.24% 4752 867
CSR 7877-E
Camden City NJ0388 16.39% 24271 3979
Chesterfield NJ0395 49.93% 899 449
Easthampton NJ0416 19.21% 2226 428 
Fieldsboro NJ0384 23.19% 189 44
Florence NJ0387 18.16% 4149 753
Lumberton NJ0389 18.98% 3930 746
Mansfield NJ0419 32.85% 2077 682
Mount Holly NJ0356 19.38% 3903 757
Pemberton Borough NJ0390 19.71% 470 93
Pemberton Township NJ0310 18.52%  10050 1861  
Pennsauken NJ0257 17.74% 12389 2198
Plumstead NJ0391 28.47% 2510 715
Shamong NJ0594 15.29% 2132 326
Southampton NJ0418 15.32% 4574 701
Springfield NJ0411 25.27% 1098 278
  
94 Petitioner gave this system the CUID NJ00415, but we assume it intended to give it NJ0041 rather than NJ00415 
or another CUID that has been assigned to Lebanon, NJ0491.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
16
2000 Estimated 
  Census DBS
Communities CUID(s)  CPR* Households Subscribers
CSR 7877-E (continued)
Tabernacle NJ0595 15.41% 2346 361
Westhampton NJ0417 19.63% 2525 496
Wrightstown NJ0394 17.12% 312 53
CSR 7885-E
Belleville NJ0220 22.16% 13731 3043
Bloomfield NJ0221 15.51% 19017 2949
Carteret NJ0402 29.69% 7039 2090
Irvington NJ0164 16.09%  22032 3545
Orange NJ0202 17.25% 11885 2051
Perth Amboy NJ0350 24.70% 14562 3596
Rahway NJ0354 20.12% 10028 2017
Roselle NJ0248 21.40% 7520 1609
Roselle Park NJ0247 15.43% 5137 793
Secaucus NJ0325 15.38% 6214 956
South River NJ0443 32.45% 5606 1819
Union NJ0222 23.66% 19534 4621
Winfield NJ0361 23.89% 694 166
Woodbridge NJ0329 22.22% 34562 7681
 
*CPR = Percent of competitive DBS penetration rate.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
17
ATTACHMENT B
CSR 7868-E, 7877-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES OF 
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATONS, LLC
 
Franchise Area Cable Penetration
Communities CUID(s)  Households Subscribers Percentage
CSR 7868-E
Mount Olive NJ0012 9068 181 2.00%
CSR 7877-E
New Hanover NJ0392 1162 195 16.78%
Woodland NJ0596 425 62 14.59%
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-285 
18
ATTACHMENT C
CSR 7588-E, CSR 7589-E, CSR 7590-E, CSR 7591-E, CSR 7592-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES OF 
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATONS, LLC
 
Communities CUID(s)  
CSR 7588-E
Eatontown NJ0132
Fair Haven NJ0435
Freehold NJ0474
Holmdel NJ0487
Little Silver NJ0206
Middletown NJ0362
Oceanport NJ0158
Red Bank NJ0433
Rumson NJ0469
Sea Bright NJ0156
Shrewsbury Borough NJ0274
Tinton Falls NJ0434
CSR 7589-E
Audubon Borough NJ0172
Barrington NJ0230
Cherry Hill NJ0241
Haddon Heights NJ0205
Haddonfield NJ0301
Lawnside NJ0303
CSR 7590-E
East Rutherford NJ0295
Wallington NJ0382
CSR 7591-E
Cranford NJ0360
Garwood NJ0378
Kenilworth NJ0351
CSR 7592-E
Monroe NJ0372