Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC on behalf 
of its subsidiaries and affiliates
Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in Communities in New Jersey
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 12-152, CSR-8649-E
MB Docket No. 12-159, CSR-8650-E
MB Docket No. 12-160, CSR-8651-E
MB Docket No. 12-161, CSR-8652-E
MB Docket No. 12-162, CSR-8653-E
MB Docket No. 12-163, CSR-8654-E
MB Docket No. 12-164, CSR-8655-E
MB Docket No. 12-165, CSR-8656-E
MB Docket No. 12-166, CSR-8657-E
MB Docket No. 12-180, CSR-8668-E
MB Docket No. 12-183, CSR-8671-E
MB Docket No. 12-190, CSR-8675-E                   
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  March 21, 2016         Released:  March 21, 2016
By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, has filed with 
the Commission petitions pursuant to Sections 76.7, 76.905(b)(2) and 76.907 of the Commission’s rules 
for a determination that Petitioner is subject to effective competition in the communities listed on 
Attachment A (the “Communities”).  Petitioner alleges that its cable systems serving the Communities are 
subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (“Communications Act”),
1
and the Commission’s implementing rules,
2
and that it is 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”), and in certain communities also by Verizon New Jersey Inc. (“Verizon”).  The Division of 
Rate Counsel of the State of New Jersey (“DRC”) filed a motion to dismiss the petitions that used 
Verizon subscribership data because there was no protective order in place to maintain the confidentiality 
of the information.
3
  The Media Bureau subsequently adopted a protective order and dismissed the 
motion.
4
The DRC filed comments opposing the petitions in CSR-8653-E and CSR-8654-E,
5
to which 
Petitioner filed replies.
6
  The DRC also filed a separate consolidated motion to dismiss all the other
                                                          
1
See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1)(B).
2
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
3
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, Motion to Dismiss, MB Docket Nos. 12-152, 12-159, 12-160, 12-161, 12-
164, 12-165, 12-166, 12-180, 12-183 and 12-190 (filed Jul. 25, 2012).
4
See Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in Communities 
in New Jersey, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15940 (MB Dec. 20, 2012) (adopting a protective order that Verizon submitted 
to keep confidential subscribership data that Petitioner obtained from Verizon to support its petitions).
5
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, Comments in Opposition to Petitions, MB Docket Nos. 12-162 and 12-163 
(filed Aug. 13, 2012) (“Opposition”).
6
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Reply to Opposition, MB Docket Nos. 12-162 and 12-163 (filed Aug. 28, 
2012) (“Comcast Reply to Opposition”).  Petitioner withdrew its effective competition petition with regard to the 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
2
petitions,
7
to which Petitioner filed an opposition
8
and the DRC filed a reply.
9
  Bordentown Township 
submitted a resolution opposing Petition CSR-8655-E.
10
  Lawrence Township also filed a “formal 
objection” requesting that Petition CSR-8668-E be denied.
11
2. In June 2015, a Commission order adopted a rebuttable presumption that cable operators 
are subject to one type of effective competition, commonly referred to as competing provider effective 
competition.
12
  Accordingly, in the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, the Commission now 
presumes that cable systems are subject to competing provider effective competition, and it continues to 
presume that cable systems are not subject to any of the other three types of effective competition, as 
defined by Section 623(l) of the Communications Act and Section 76.905 of the Commission’s rules.
13
  
For the reasons set forth below, we grant Comcast’s petitions. 
II. THE COMPETING PROVIDER TEST
3. 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 multichannel 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.
14
  This test is referred to as the “competing provider” test.  Pursuant to 
the Effective Competition Order, absent evidence to the contrary, the Commission presumes that the 
competing provider test is met.
A. The First Part
4. The first part of this test has three elements:  the franchise area must be “served by” at 
least two unaffiliated MVPDs who offer “comparable programming” to at least “50 percent” of the 
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
communities of Lebanon, NJ and Weymouth, NJ because the Commission has made effective competition findings 
in those communities.  See Comcast Reply to Opposition in CSR 8653-E at 1 n.1; Comcast Reply to Opposition in 
CSR 8654-E at 1 n. 1.
7
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, Motion to Dismiss, MB Docket Nos. 12-152, 12-159, 12-160, 12-161, 12-
164, 12-165, 12-166, 12-180, 12-183 and 12-190 (filed Feb. 8, 2013) (“Consolidated Motion to Dismiss”).
8
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, MB Docket Nos. 12-152, 12-159, 12-
160, 12-161, 12-164, 12-165, 12-166, 12-180, 12-183 and 12-190 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (“Opposition to 
Consolidated Motion to Dismiss”).
9
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, Reply on Motion to Dismiss, MB Docket Nos. 12-152, 12-159, 12-160, 12-
161, 12-164, 12-165, 12-166, 12-180, 12-183 and 12-190 (filed Feb. 27, 2013) (“Reply to Opposition to 
Consolidated Motion to Dismiss”).
10
Township Committee of the Township of Bordentown, Resolution #2013-028-24A, Resolution Opposing Any 
Determination That There is Effective Competition For Cable Television Internet and Phone Services in the 
Township of Bordentown (appended to Letter from Colleen M. Eckert, Township Clerk, to Federal Communications 
Commission (Jan. 31, 2013)) (“Bordentown Opposition”).
11
Formal objection by the Township of Lawrence, Mercer County, New Jersey to the grant of the Petition by 
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (July 20, 2012) (“Lawrence Opposition”).  
12
See Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Concerning Effective Competition; Implementation of Section 111 of the 
STELA Reauthorization Act, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6574 (2015) (“Effective Competition Order”).
13
See 47 U.S.C. § 543(l)(1); 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.905(b), 76.906.
14
47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
3
households in the franchise area.
15
  As explained in the Effective Competition Order, “we find that the 
ubiquitous nationwide presence of DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH, presumptively satisfies the” 
first part of the test for competing provider effective competition, absent evidence to the contrary.
16
  The 
DRC argues that the two DBS providers do not provide comparable programming because they do not 
offer public, educational, and government (“PEG”) channels.
17
  The “comparable programming” element 
of the competing provider test does not contain any PEG requirement, but rather, it is met if a competing 
provider offers at least 12 channels of video programming, including at least one channel of nonbroadcast 
service programming.
18
  Moreover, the DRC’s argument fails to rebut the new presumption of competing 
provider effective competition because we now presume that DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH, 
provide comparable programming.
19
  In accordance with the presumption of competing provider effective 
competition, and based on the information submitted by Petitioner and the DRC, we thus find that the first 
part of the test is satisfied.
B. The Second Part
5. The second part of the competing provider test requires that the number of households 
subscribing to MVPDs, other than the largest MVPD, exceeds 15 percent of the households in a franchise 
area.
20
  As explained in the Effective Competition Order, “[w]ith regard to the second prong of the test, 
we will presume that more than 15 percent of the households in a franchise area subscribe to 
programming services offered by MVPDs other than the largest MVPD.”
21
  Below we address in turn the 
arguments in the DRC’s Opposition, the DRC’s Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, and the separate 
oppositions from the Townships of Bordentown and Lawrence, that Petitioner has not satisfied the second 
part of the competing provider effective competition test.
A. The DRC’s Opposition in CSR-8653-E and CSR-8654-E
6. The DRC’s oppositions to petitions CSR-8653-E and CSR-8654-E are substantially 
similar and reiterate arguments by it that we have rejected in prior proceedings.  First, Comcast submitted 
DBS subscribership totals from 2012 and U.S. Census household data from 2010, but the DRC argues 
that the data must be contemporaneous with each other and with the date the petition was filed.
22
We 
have previously approved the use of the most recent Census household data, even if the DBS 
subscribership totals are more recent.
23
  Although we will accept more recent household data that is at 
                                                          
15
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(i).
16
Effective Competition Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6580-81, ¶ 8.
17
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 6; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 6-7.
18
See 47 C.F.R. § 76.905(g); see also Petition at 5; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC In re Six Michigan 
Communities, 26 FCC Rcd 3993, 3994, ¶ 5 (2011) (The Commission confirmed that “[t]he rule does not mention 
PEG channels, and we have repeatedly held that the absence of PEG channels from competing service does not 
disqualify its programming from being ‘comparable to cable operators’ for purposes of determining effective 
competition.”); Cablevision of Oakland, Inc. and CSR TKR, Inc. In re Four Communities in New Jersey, 24 FCC 
Rcd 1801, 1803, ¶ 7 (2009) (“The full Commission, when it adopted the definition of ‘comparable programming,’ 
was fully aware of PEG channels – it discussed both in the same decisions.  If the full Commission had wanted PEG 
channels to be part of ‘comparable programming,’ it would have stated so.  It did not.”).  
19
Effective Competition Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6580-81, ¶ 8.
20
47 C.F.R. § 76.905(b)(2)(ii).
21
Effective Competition Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6581-82, ¶ 9.
22
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 5; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 5-6.
23
Cable Operators’ Petitions for Reconsideration & Revocation of Franchising Authorities’ Certifications to 
Regulate Basic Cable Service Rates, 9 FCC Rcd 3656, ¶ 2 (CSB 1994) (“With respect to household data, we realize 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
4
least as reliable as the Census data,
24
the DRC did not provide any such data.
25
  Second, the DRC asserts 
that the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association “(SBCA”) subscriber tracking reports
that Petitioner relies upon do not take into account any subsequent cancellations.
26
  We find that the
information the DRC submitted as support, including a newspaper article about cord-cutting and DISH 
and DIRECTV quarterly reports,
27
does not provide evidence that any cancellations were significant 
enough in number to undermine the DBS penetration figures the Petitioner provided.
28
  Third, the DRC 
argues that Petitioner’s “plant does not extend to the entire geography” of the franchise areas, thus 
“effective competition cannot be granted since such a declaration would apply to areas within the 
franchises that admittedly are not served by Comcast.”
29
  The DRC provides no support for this argument, 
and we have previously held that the allegation that a cable operator has not built out its entire franchise 
area is insufficient evidence to redefine a cable operator’s franchise area for effective competition 
purposes.
30
  Fourth, the DRC contends that the petitions did not include “the analysis, maps and work 
papers that underlie and support the calculation of DBS penetration submitted by Comcast,” which 
prevents the DRC from challenging the underlying numbers.
31
  We have previously rejected this 
argument, and we do so again here because Petitioner filed all of the DBS and household numbers and the 
calculations it used to estimate DBS subscribership, as well as detailed statements from the SBCA 
describing how it derived the numbers that Petitioner used.
32
  The DRC reveals no errors with the 
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
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.”); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Petitions for Determination of Effective 
Competition in 107 Franchise Areas in New Jersey, 24 FCC Rcd 1780, 1783-84, ¶ 13 (2009) (“[W]e have found 
competing provider effective competition to exist based on household and DBS subscribership data that are several 
years apart in time.”).  See also Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141, ¶ 13 (MB 2008) 
(“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, ¶ 16 (MB 2007); Cablevision of Raritan Valley, Inc., 19 
FCC Rcd 6966, ¶ 6 (MB 2004) (“2000 Census data is sufficiently reliable for effective competition 
determinations”).
24
See, e.g., Adelphia Cable Commun., 22 FCC Rcd 4462, ¶ 14 (MB 2007); Bright House Networks LLC, 22 FCC 
Rcd 4390, ¶ 11 (MB 2007).
25
We also dismiss again 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.  Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 5; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 5-6.  In previous proceedings, the DRC 
advocated such a rule, which we rejected.  See Subsidiaries of Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141, ¶¶ 
21-22.
26
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 6; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 6.
27
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 6; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 6.
28
Petitioner presented certain updated subscribership data, although it was not required to do so, and all subscriber 
levels still exceed the 15 percent statutory threshold.  See Comcast Reply to Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 4; 
Comcast Reply to Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 4. 
29
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 6-7; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 7.
30
Cablevision of Patterson, 17 FCC Rcd 17239, ¶ 4 (MB 2002); Century Cable of Northern California, Inc., 14 
FCC Rcd 18604, ¶ 17 (CSB 1999).
31
Opposition in CSR-8653-E at 7; Opposition in CSR-8654-E at 7.  Further, the cases that the DRC cites to support 
this argument apply to notice-and-comment rulemakings and not to an adjudication like the present matter.  See 
American Radio League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Ass’n Inc., 494 F.3d 188, 202 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
32
See, e.g., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 24 FCC Rcd 1780, ¶¶ 16-19 (MB 2009); Subsidiaries of 
Cablevision Systems Corp., 23 FCC Rcd 14141 at ¶¶ 19-20.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
5
calculations. For all of the above reasons, we reject the DRC’s objections that the petitions CSR-8653-E 
and CSR-8654-E should be denied.
B.  The DRC’s Consolidated Motion to Dismiss
7. The DRC’s Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, filed in the dockets subject to the protective 
order,
33
argues that the petitions should be dismissed for two reasons.  First, the DRC argues that the 
Petitioner impermissibly relied on “competitively sensitive data” from Verizon in violation of the 
Commission’s decision authorizing the transfer of spectrum from SpectrumCo LLC, which included the 
Petitioner, to Verizon Wireless, and the Justice Department’s related Consent Decree.
34
  We agree with
Petitioner that the Consent Decree defines “competitively sensitive [Verizon] information” as “any non-
public information relating to the price, terms, availability, or marketing plans of [Verizon] services,” and 
the DRC fails to explain how the Verizon subscriber numbers submitted to support the Petitioner’s 
effective competition demonstration fit into that definition.
35
  Significantly, subscriber data is not included 
in the Consent Decree’s definition of “competitively sensitive [Verizon] information.”
36
  Moreover, 
Verizon was compelled to provide the subscriber data to Petitioner pursuant to Section 76.907(c) of our 
rules.
37
  We do not believe that the prohibitions on information sharing in the Spectrum Decision or the 
Consent Decree were intended to prohibit Verizon’s disclosure of subscribership figures to cable 
operators as required under our rules.  
8. Second, the DRC argues that the petitions do not account for potential subscriber losses 
between the date of the SBCA calculations and the filing of the petitions due to the impact of Hurricane 
Sandy on many New Jersey communities.
38
  This argument is essentially a variant on the argument about 
subsequent cancellations that we rejected above.
39
  As explained above, the DRC does not provide 
evidence that any cancellations were significant enough in number to undermine the DBS penetration 
figures the Petitioner provided.  For all of the above reasons, we deny the DRC’s Consolidated Motion to 
Dismiss.
C.  Municipality Oppositions in CSR-8655-E and CSR-8668-E
9. The Township of Bordentown, which is subject to the petition in CSR-8655-E, submitted 
a resolution claiming that it determined that substantial numbers of residents, i.e., 1699 housing units out 
of a total of 4360 housing units do not have access to Verizon FIOS’s competitive service due to the fact 
that Verizon has not been willing to extend that service throughout the Township of Bordentown.  The 
Township also discounts the fact that residents could purchase DBS service because such services do not 
have the same local availability channels as provided by Comcast.
40
  Bordentown does not provide any 
documentation that substantiates its claim, nor, we note, is Verizon required to build out its service area 
                                                          
33
This includes MB Docket Nos. 12-152, 12-159, 12-160, 12-161, 12-164, 12-165, 12-166, 12-180, 12-183, and 12-
190.
34
See Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and SpectrumCo LLC and Cox TMI, LLC for 
Consent to Assign AWS-1 Licenses, 27 FCC Rcd 10698 (2012) (“Spectrum Decision”); United States v. Verizon 
Commc’ns Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01354-RMC, Proposed Final Judgment, ECF No. 2-1 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 16, 2012) 
(“Consent Decree”); Consolidated Motion to Dismiss at 2-3 (citing Consent Decree at 5).
35
Opposition to Consolidated Motion to Dismiss at 4.
36
Consent Decree at 4.
37
47 C.F.R. § 76.907(c).
38
Consolidated Motion to Dismiss at 2-3, 7.
39
See supra ¶ 6.
40
Bordentown Opposition.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
6
beyond that mandated in its franchise agreement.  Even if we were to accept Bordentown’s claim, 
however, it would not be persuasive because Petitioner relies on the availability of DBS service from 
DIRECTV and DISH, and not only Verizon.
41
As an MVPD serving Comcast’s Bordertown franchise 
area, Verizon’s subscribers are correctly included in the calculation of whether the second part of the 
competing provider test is satisfied.  To the extent that Bordentown is challenging the extent to which the 
DBS providers offer comparable programming in Bordentown as required by the competing provider test, 
we have already explained above that the DBS providers satisfy the comparable programing 
requirement.
42
  
10. The Township of Lawrence, which is subject to the petition in CSR-8668-E, filed a
“formal objection” that we will treat as an opposition to the petition.  Lawrence requests, without 
elaboration, that the Petition be denied.
43
  Because this objection offers no evidence refuting Petitioner’s 
demonstration of effective competition in the Township of Lawrence, it provides no basis for denying the 
Petition.
D.  Conclusion
11. For all of the above reasons, the arguments put forth by the DRC and the Townships of 
Bordentown and Lawrence fail to rebut the presumption of competing provider effective competition.  In 
accordance with the presumption of competing provider effective competition, and based on the 
information submitted by Petitioner, the DRC, and the Townships of Bordentown and Lawrence, we thus 
find that the second prong of the test is satisfied.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for a determination of effective 
competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, ARE 
GRANTED as to the Communities listed on Attachment A hereto. 
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification to regulate basic cable service rates 
granted to or on behalf of any of the Communities set forth on Attachment A IS REVOKED. 
14. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.283 of the 
Commission’s rules.
44
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Steven A. Broeckaert
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau
                                                          
41
Petition CSR-8655-E at 3-4.
42
See supra ¶ 4.
43
Lawrence Opposition.
44
47 C.F.R. § 0.283.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
7
ATTACHMENT A
MB Docket No. 12-152, CSR-8649-E
MB Docket No. 12-159, CSR-8650-E
MB Docket No. 12-160, CSR-8651-E
MB Docket No. 12-161, CSR-8652-E
MB Docket No. 12-162, CSR-8653-E
MB Docket No. 12-163, CSR-8654-E
MB Docket No. 12-164, CSR-8655-E
MB Docket No. 12-165, CSR-8656-E
MB Docket No. 12-166, CSR-8657-E
MB Docket No. 12-180, CSR-8668-E
   MB Docket No. 12-183, CSR-8671-E
45
MB Docket No. 12-190, CSR-8675-E
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Communities CASE CUID CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated Non-
Comcast MVPD 
Subscribers
North Arlington Borough 8649-E NJ0298 49.37% 6,295 3,108**
Rutherford Borough 8649-E NJ0294 49.26% 6,949 3,423
Beachwood Borough 8650-E NJ0091 19.99% 3,682 736
Toms River Township 
(f/k/a Dover Township)
8650-E NJ0160 36.64% 34,760 12,737**
Island Heights Borough 8650-E NJ0198 43.48% 683 297**
Lakehurst Borough 8650-E NJ0500 24.18% 881 213
South Toms River 
Borough
8650-E NJ0143 25.14% 1,098 276
East Windsor Township 8651-E NJ0397 38.66% 10,224 3,953**
Helmetta Borough 8651-E NJ0439 30.98% 891 276**
Hightstown Borough 8651-E NJ0414 48.99% 1,976 968**
Plainsboro Township 8651-E NJ0344 36.24% 9,402 3,407**
Roosevelt Borough 8651-E NJ0508 39.17% 314 123**
West Windsor Township 8651-E NJ0530 41.30% 9,449 3,902**
Hazlet Township 8652-E NJ0405 55.67% 7,140 3,975**
Hampton Borough 8653-E NJ0040 25.26% 570 144
Independence Township 8653-E NJ0314 17.68% 2,234 395
Mansfield Township 8653-E NJ0011 21.53% 2,972 640
Washington Borough 8653-E NJ0043 27.07% 2,623 710
Washington Township 8653-E NJ0080 21.82% 6,237 1,361
                                                          
45
We note that the Commission also found in another proceeding that the communities of Hillside Township 
(NJ0223) and Linden City (NJ0250) are subject to effective competition.  See Comcast Cable Communications, 
LLC, on behalf of its subsidiaries and affiliates; Six Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition in New 
Jersey, DA 16-273 (MB March 14, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
8
Communities CASE CUID CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated Non-
Comcast MVPD 
Subscribers
(Morris Co.)
Washington Township 
(Warren Co.)
8653-E NJ0042 28.57% 2,380 680
Mullica Township 8654-E NJ0609 16.81% 2,154 362
Bordertown City 8655-E NJ0511 43.41% 1,859 807**
Bordertown Township 8655-E NJ0461 41.34% 4,173 1,725**
Buena Borough 8656-E NJ0467 16.19% 1,723 279
Buena Vista Township 8656-E NJ0580 20.46% 2,786 570
Lawrence Township 8656-E NJ0569 28.13% 1,102 310
Monroe Township 8656-E NJ0447 27.14% 12,815 3,478**
Pilesgrove Township 8656-E NJ0516 28.36% 1,488 422
Pittsgrove Township 8656-E NJ0524 17.27% 3,307 571
Salem City 8656-E NJ0038 27.12% 2,157 585**
Shiloh Borough 8656-E NJ0468 22.73% 198 45
South Harrison Township 8656-E NJ0526 16.96% 1,020 173
Swedesboro Borough 8656-E NJ0497 18.98% 938 178
Upper Deerfield 
Township
8656-E NJ0564,
NJ0600
20.59% 2,866 590**
Waterford Township 8656-E NJ0462 40.33% 3,692 1,489**
Woolwich Township 8656-E NJ0513 17.13% 3,141 538
Chatham Township 8657-E NJ0509 47.18% 3,915 1,847**
Chester Township 8657-E NJ0574 26.97% 2,592 699**
Delaware Township 8657-E NJ0611 20.13% 1,788 360
Long Hill Township 8657-E NJ0495 65.25% 3,105 2,026**
Mendham Borough 8657-E NJ0546 72.59% 1,722 1,250**
Mendham Township 8657-E NJ0565 67.62% 1,952 1,320**
Peapack & Gladstone 
Borough
8657-E NJ0547 47.13% 887 418**
Princeton Borough 8657-E NJ0481 37.87% 3,161 1,197**
Princeton Township 8657-E NJ0482 40.94% 6,360 2,604**
Readington Township 8657-E NJ0493 21.54% 5,971 1,286**
Rocky Hill Borough 8657-E NJ0577 42.86% 280 120**
Tewksbury Township 8657-E NJ0575 28.23% 2,189 618
Union Township 8657-E NJ0597 27.11% 1,752 475
Delaware Township 8668-E NJ0607 20.13% 1,788 360
Ewing Township 8668-E NJ0479 51.48% 13,171 6,780**
Hopewell Borough 8668-E NJ0560 56.04% 778 436**
Hopewell Township 8668-E NJ0578 54.49% 6,282 3,423**
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
9
Communities CASE CUID CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated Non-
Comcast MVPD 
Subscribers
Lawrence Township 8668-E NJ0480 38.17% 12,524 4,781**
Pennington Borough 8668-E NJ0559 62.46% 1,031 644**
West Amwell Township 8668-E NJ0593 18.33% 1,102 202
Berkeley Heights 
Township
8671-E NJ0323 49.46% 4,470 2,211**
Caldwell Borough 8671-E NJ0193 45.94% 3,359 1,543**
Clark Township 8671-E NJ0353 18.19% 5,562 1,012**
Essex Fells Borough 8671-E NJ0225 54.53% 728 397**
Fanwood Borough 8671-E NJ0369 58.24% 2,627 1,530**
Glen Ridge Borough 
Township
8671-E NJ0545 27.22% 2,476 674**
Hillside Township 8671-E NJ0223 37.85% 7,112 2,692
Linden City 8671-E NJ0250 33.40% 14,909 4,979
Livingston Township 8671-E NJ0162 59.42% 9,990 5,936**
Maplewood Township 8671-E NJ0188 53.06% 8,240 4,372**
Millburn Township 8671-E NJ0246 56.61% 6,813 3,857**
Montclair Township 8671-E NJ0273 47.86% 15,089 7,221**
Mountainside Borough 8671-E NJ0396 52.59% 2,468 1,298**
New Providence 
Borough
8671-E NJ0324 52.52% 4,408 2,315**
Roseland Borough 8671-E NJ0194 44.56% 2,345 1,045**
Scotch Plains Township 8671-E NJ0352 47.85% 8,595 4,113**
Springfield Township 8671-E NJ0272 49.27% 6,511 3,208**
Summit City 8671-E NJ0261 50.13% 7,708 3,864**
Verona Borough 
Township
8671-E NJ0187 49.99% 5,315 2,657**
West Caldwell Township 8671-E NJ0163 56.25% 3,913 2,201**
West Orange Township 8671-E NJ0165 51.24% 16,790 8,604**
Westfield Town 8671-E NJ0249 64.10% 10,566 6,773**
Bellmawr Borough 8675-E NJ0229 22.36% 4,670 1,044**
Berlin Borough 8675-E NJ0308 40.66% 2,806 1,141**
Berlin Township 8675-E NJ0327 44.76% 1,975 884**
Clementon Borough 8675-E NJ0316 15.84% 2,064 327
Collingswood Borough 8675-E NJ0209 28.86% 6,299 1,818**
Deptford Township 8675-E NJ0267 26.25% 11,689 3,068**
Glassboro Borough 8675-E NJ0367 34.22% 6,158 2,107**
Gloucester City 8675-E NJ0146 20.53% 4,248 872**
Hainesport Township 8675-E NJ0385 28.81% 2,239 645**
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-298
10
Communities CASE CUID CPR*
2010 Census
Households
Estimated Non-
Comcast MVPD 
Subscribers
Maple Shade Township 8675-E NJ0319 24.80% 8,525 2,114**
Medford Lakes Borough 8675-E NJ0386 52.80% 1,483 783**
Mount Ephraim Borough 8675-E NJ0168 26.30% 1,909 502**
Oaklyn Borough 8675-E NJ0173 39.71% 1,725 685**
Pine Hill Borough 8675-E NJ0347 15.37% 4,086 628**
Pitman Borough 8675-E NJ0340 38.32% 3,489 1,337**
Voorhees Township 8675-E NJ0321 24.84% 11,470 2,849**
West Deptford Township 8675-E NJ0379 31.31% 8,829 2,764**
Woodbury City 8675-E NJ0269 31.68% 4,088 1,295**
Woodbury Heights 
Borough
8675-E NJ0268 38.85% 1,081 420**
Woodlynne Borough 8675-E NJ0258 39.37% 917 361**
      
*CPR = Percent of competitive penetration rate of DBS.
** = Percent of competitive penetration rate of both DBS and Verizon.