HomeMy WebLinkAboutComcast oppostion letter to FCC on 03_2008 Special Relief Petition
Bradleyd4
GUZZetta, LLC
55 East Fifth Street
Suite 1220
Saint Paul. MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900
F'(651)379-0999
Attorneys at Law
Michael R. Bradleyt
Stephen J. Guzzetta-
Joy Gullikson
Gregory S. Uhl
Legal Assistant
Thomas R. Colaizy
www.brad lcyguzzctta.coin
June 6, 2008 VIA FEDEX
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
9300 East Hampton Drive
Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743
Re: Opposition to Petition for Special Relief in CSR-7856-E
Dear Ms. Dortch:
Attached for filing In the Matter of Comeast Cable Communications, LLC,
Petition for Special Relief for Determination of Effective Competition in 9
Algona, Washington-Area Franchise Areas, CSR-7856-E, are an original and
four (4) copies of the Opposition of the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines and
Maple Valley, Washington to Comcast's Petition for Special Relief (the
"Opposition").
I have also enclosed an additional copy of the Opposition. Please date-stamp
that copy and return it to me in the enclosed postage-prepaid envelope.
Very truly yours,
BRADLEY & GULZETTA, LLC
Michael R. Bradley
Attachments
tAlso adinnicd to'aeon,.
•Also admitted in hlassachuxns and the
Distract of Colwnbia
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC
In the Matter of )
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ) CSR No. 7856-E
For Determination of Effective )
Competition in: 9 Algona, Washington-Area )
Franchise Areas. )
OPPOSITION OF THE CITIES OF AUBURN DES MOINES AND MAPLE VALLEY
WASHINGTON TO COMCAST'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF
The Petition in this matter must be denied for two reasons. First, the data and
methodology supporting the Petition are inaccurate and out-of-date. Second, there is no support
that the Petition is in the public interest as required by the Commission's rules. For these
reasons, the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines and Maple Valley, Washington (the "Cities"), by and
through their attorneys, file this Opposition to Comcast's Petition for Special Relief (the
"Petition") filed by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast") on April 2, 2008,
requesting that the Commission deny the Petition.'
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended (the "Cable Act"), lays out
extensive mechanisms to protect subscribers to basic cable, equipment and installation services
from abusive pricing behavior. The Cable Act requires that in order to de-regulate these
services, a cable operator must be subject to effective competition in the relevant franchise area.
Comcast bears the burden of demonstrating that effective competition exists in the franchise
1 The Public Notice in this matter appeared on April 18, 2008. The Cities requested and were
granted a 30-day extension of the deadline for filing this opposition. See Letter requesting
extension from Michael R. Bradley dated April 18, 2008 and e-mail from Comcast's counsel
granting extension attached as Exhibit 1.
areas for which it seeks relief.2 Additionally, under the Commission's rules, Comcast is required
to demonstrate that approval of its Petition would serve the public interest.' Comcast has failed
to meet its burden on all counts.
Comcast's sole claim is that Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") service provides
effective competition to Comcast in the Cities.4 Specifically, Comcast asserts that more than
15% of the households in the Cities are DBS subscribers. Comcast bases this assertion on
calculations that rely on subscriber numbers provided by a private entity, the Satellite Broadcast
Communications Association ("SBCA") and 2000 Census data that does not reflect recent
changes in population and occupied households.5 The SBCA subscriber numbers requested by
Comcast are based on five-digit zip codes which do not accurately reflect and follow the
territorial boundaries of a franchise area and in the case of the City of Auburn and possibly the
other Cities, the number of occupied households has increased since 2000.6 In addition to using
inaccurate and out-of-date data, Comcast's methodology of calculating the penetration rate in the
Cities is flawed thereby rendering the data submitted "unreliable and inaccurate."' The
methodology has "significant problems and errors" and has never been fully evaluated and tested
by the FCC.'
Further, Comcast's Petition falls short of the Commission's requirement to show that de-
See 47 C.F.R. § 76.907(b) ("[t]he cable operator bears the burden of rebutting the presumption
that effective competition does not exist with evidence that effective competition, as defined in
§ 76.905, exists in the franchise area.").
'47 C.F.R. § 76.7(a)(4).
4 See Comcast Petition at para. 1(a).
'See Declaration of Richard D. Treich in Support of Opposition to Comcast's Petition for
Special Relief filed by the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines and Maple Valley, Washington
attached as Exhibit 2 (the "Treich Declaration"), at para. 7-13.
' Id. at para. 10.
'Id. at para. 6.
a Id.
regulation of basic cable service, equipment and installation is in the public interest. In fact, it
fails to address the public interest at all. The Commission should therefore deny Comcast's
Petition.
ARGUMENT
I. THE PETITION MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE THE METHODOLOGY AND
DATA SUPPORTING THE PETITION ARE INACURATE AND OUT-OF-DATE.
Comcast has the burden of proof to demonstrate that effective competition exists in a
particular franchise area.9 In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are
presumed not to be subject to effective competition, as that term is defined by Section 76.905 of
the Commission's rules. 10 Congress instituted the test for effective competition from which
Comcast seeks relief based on its finding that the cable industry enjoyed market power. 11 In the
absence of a robust competitive market that would effectively prevent such market power, the
Commission's rate regulation rules are necessary to protect cable subscribers and the
Commission is charged with that duty under law. 12 To demonstrate effective competition under
the "competing provider" test, the relief seeker must demonstrate that the franchise area at issue
is:
(i) served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors
each of which offers comparable programming to at least 50 percent of the
households in the franchise area; and
(ii) the number of households subscribing to multichannel video programming other
than the largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent
'47 C.F.R. 76.7(a)(4).
10 See 47 C.F.R §§ 76.905 and 76.906.
11 See 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)-(f), (h) -0), (1) -(n) (provisions of federal law related to finding of
effective competition); Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, § 2(a)(1)(2) (1992).
12 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(1). See also id. at § 543(h) (Commission is responsible for preventing
evasions).
of the households in the franchise area ... 13
To support its assertion that more than 15 percent of the households in the Cities
subscribe to multichannel video programming services offered by multichannel video
programming distributors other than the largest multichannel video programming distributor,
Comcast relies on 2000 United States Census data for the Cities, yet compares the 2000 Census
data to 2007 DBS subscriber numbers. Census data from 2000 is simply too old to provide
meaningful analysis. Although this Commission has in the past permitted reliance on the
decennial Census data, the use of such data should only be permitted in the absence of more
recent and equally reliable data.
Richard D. Treich, a former cable executive for AT&T Broadband and TCI
Communications, Inc. with thirty years experience in regulated industries, studied the penetration
rate in this matter and found a "significant error" in Comcast's data. 14 Using current and widely
available public information, Mr. Treich found, for example, that the City of Auburn has grown
significantly in the past seven years and more reliable data is available publicly for determining
the actual percentage of households serviced by DBS.15 Contrary to the Petition, which
represented there are only 16,108 households in Auburn, recent State of Washington Office of
Financial Management reports show that there are currently 21,402 occupied households in the
city. 16 When up-to-date household data is utilized, the DBS penetration rate for Auburn is
significantly less than the 15% statutory threshold, even using Comcast's inherently unreliable
DBS subscriber numbers.'7
13 47 C.F.R. § 76.905.
14 See Treich Declaration at para. 11.
" Id. at para. 12.
16 Id.
17 Id.
In addition to using a base number that is out of date, Mr. Treich also found that
Comcast's claimed DBS penetration rates rely on an unreliable approximation based on
assumption and extrapolation from the SBCA data. For example, Comcast relies on the five-
digit zip code allocation formula to assign subscriptions to households.18 Comcast claims that
the formula provides sufficient evidence that the 15% test has been met, and that the formula
demonstrates that the DBS providers serve more than 15% of the households in the Cities. The
formula does not demonstrate 15% penetration, but rather offers only a poor approximation of
the actual DBS subscribers in the Cities because it uses an imprecise and artificial allocation
factor.
On April 18, 2008, the Cities requested the supporting information used to support the
Comcast subscriber allocations, but Comcast did not respond. 19 Without analysis and testing of
the allocation methods, the assumptions, and other proxies used by Comcast, there can be no
determination of the accurate penetration rate of other video providers. As with the Census data,
Comcast had more reliable and more up to date subscriber numbers, yet did not avail itself of
that information. Comcast could have and should have used the zip+4 data available from
MBC.20 The entire calculation of the penetration rate is therefore suspect. Since more reliable
information is readily available, which shows effective competition does not exist, Comcast has
failed to meet its burden of proof and the Commission must deny the Petition.
ll. THE PETITION MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE COMCAST FAILED TO SHOW
THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.
Not only should the Comcast Petition be denied because Comcast used unreliable and
"See Treich Declaration at para. 10.
19 See Treich Declaration at para. 7.
20 Apparently MBC has such data as they reference using the zip+5 data in their letter attached to
the Petition as Exhibit 4.
out-of-date data to calculate the penetration rate, but Comcast also failed to demonstrate its
Petition would serve the public interest as required by the Commission's rules. The applicable
rule states in relevant part that:
Statement of relief requested. The petition or complaint shall state the relief requested. It
shall state fully and precisely all pertinent facts and considerations relied on to
demonstrate the need for the relief requested and to support a determination that a
grant of such relief would serve the public interest.
47 C.F.R. § 76.7(a)(4) (emphasis added).
In the instant matter, Comcast never addressed how its Petition would serve the public
interest. Thus, it has failed to meet its burden of proof." Therefore, the Comcast Petition is
fatally flawed and must be denied.
A. DBS Competition does not restrain cable prices.
Even if the Petition had addressed the public interest, eliminating rate regulation and
uniform price protections would clearly not be in the public interest. First, the basic premise of
effective competition is that consumer rate protections are unnecessary because the competitive
market place will result in lower cable rates. Unfortunately, DBS competition has no effect on
cable rates. The Commission should take notice of the fact that it has already determined that
DBS competition alone has no effect on restraining cable prices. Specifically, the Commission
has determined that:
Cable prices decrease substantially when a second wireline cable operator enters the
market. It does not appear from these results that DBS effectively constrains cable prices.
Thus, in the large number of communities in which there has been a finding that the
statutory test for effective competition has been met due to the presence of DBS service,
competition does not appear to be restraining price as it does in small number
communities with a second cable operator. 22
Z' 47 C.F.R. § 76.7(a)(4).
22 See In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service,
Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, 21 FCC Red. 15087. FCC 06-179, Report on
Additionally, the FCC in its recent Franchising Order in paragraph 50 states:
The record demonstrates that new cable competition reduces rates far more than
competition from DBS. zs
In the present case, the Petition is based solely on the presence of DBS service in the
Cities. There is no second wireline cable operator. The Comcast Petition must therefore be
denied because there is no evidence suggesting the Petition should be granted in the public
interest. To the contrary, this Commission has previously concluded, the presence of DBS alone
"does not appear to be restraining price..." See FCC 06-179.
In the Statement of Chairman Kevin J. Martin attached to the Commission's report on
pricing, Chairman Martin states that:
Cable does face some competition from DBS, but our report reveals that DBS and cable
do not seem to compete on price. In other words, the presence of a DBS operator does
not have an impact on the price the cable operator charges its subscribers.24
B. Elimination of basic cable rate regulation is not in the public interest
The main benefit to Comcast if its Petition is granted is that it would no longer be bound
by the cable rate regulation scheme which serves to constrain prices for basic service, equipment
and installation rates. If the Petition is approved, there will be no effective counter-balance in
the Cities that would effectively constrain the prices that Comcast could charge to its subscribers.
In light of the Commission's own determination on the lack of impact that DBS has on
cable rates, and in light of Comcast's failure to provide reliable and accurate supporting
Cable Industry Prices (Rel. Dec. 27, 2006) (emphasis added).
23 See In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)( I) of the Cable Communications Policy
Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992, 22 FCC Rcd 5101. FCC 06-180 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. (2007)at ¶ 50.
24 1d. (emphasis added).
information in its Petition, this Commission should logically determine that de-regulation of
basic cable rates in the Cities is not in the public interest and would actually be harmful to
consumers.
C. Elimination of Uniform Pricing is not in the public interest.
Additionally, if the Commission grants Comcast's Petition, it would be eliminating
Comcast's obligation to comply with the "uniform pricing" and "anti-buy-through" rules
contained in 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.984 and 76.921, respectively. These uniform pricing and buy-
through rules were enacted to prevent cable operators from treating subscribers unfairly.
Allowing Comcast to be free of these consumer protection standards without "real" price
competition cannot be found to be in the public interest. Any other result would allow Comcast
to offer non-uniform prices, and potentially require subscribers to subscribe to a more expensive
tier of service other than basic cable service as a precondition to receiving cable service."
Furthermore, DBS price competition is on a national basis as these providers charge the
same rates nationwide. Freeing Comcast from its uniform pricing requirements (and allowing it
to price discriminate within the Cities) is not necessary in order for Comcast to compete with the
DBS providers. Consequently, the Commission should not grant this Petition because
eliminating the uniform rate requirement cannot be found to be in the public interest.
"See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.984 and 76.921.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons cited above, the Commission should deny Comcast's Petition for Special Relief.
Respectfully submitted,
By: A444;20?
Michae R. Bradley (MN # 23 8)
Bradley & Guzzetta,
55 East Fifth Street
Suite 1220
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 379-0900
Attorneys for Auburn, Des Moines and
Maple Valley, Washington
Dated: June 6, 2008.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 47 C.F.R. § 76.6(a)(4)
The undersigned has read the foregoing Opposition of the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines
and Maple Valley, Washington to Comcast's Petition For Special Relief, and, to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact
and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or
reversal of existing law and is not interposed for any improper purpose.
Respectfully submitted,
By: 'P- -
0Kdd9;P4
Michael R. Bradley (MN # 237
Bradley & Guzzetta, L
55 East Fifth Street
Suite 1220
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 379-0900
Attorneys for Auburn, Des Moines and
Maple Valley, Washington
Dated: June 6, 2008.
10
Exhibit 1
Letter requesting extension and e-mail granting extension
III
Bradley*-
GUZZetta, LLC
55 East Fifth Street
Suite 1220
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/ (651) 379-0900
F/(651)379-0999
Attorneys at Law
Michael R. Bradleyt
Stephen J. Guzzetta-
Gregory S. Uhl
Legal Assistants
Thomas R. Colaizy
www.bradlcyguzzetta.coin
April 18, 2008
VIA E-MAIL (SteveHorvitz@dwt com)
Mr. Steven J. Horvitz
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
Re: Comcast Petition for Special Relief in City of Auburn, WA
Dear Mr. Horvitz:
The City of Auburn, Washington (the "City") has asked me to represent it in the
above-referenced Petition for Special Relief (the "Petition") that I understand
was filed with the FCC on or about April 2, 2008 and published today in the
FCC Daily Digest. I am writing to you for two reasons. First, given the short
20-day time period to respond to the Petition, I am asking for the professional
courtesy of a 30-day extension, which would mean that the City's response
would be due on June 9, 2008.
Secondly, in order to properly analyze the data submitted in the Petition by
Comcast with regards to the allocation of zip code DBS subscribers to the City
of Auburn, I am asking that Comcast provide full and complete responses to the
following data requests, including all supporting documentation that will allow
the City to fully understand the methodology and data used by MBC in creating
these zip code allocation percentages.
1. Please provide further narrative descriptions (in addition to that provided
on Exhibit 4) of the methodology employed by MBC to prepare the zip
code allocation estimates for the City of Auburn. Such narrative
descriptions should be detailed so as to allow the City to recreate the zip
code allocation percentages from the underlying data.
2. Please provide all of the underlying data used by MBC to develop the
zip code allocation percentages. Such data should include not only the
first layer of the data used to develop the zip code allocation percentages
but rather ALL of the data used by MBC to support the zip code
allocation percentages.
3. Please explain why MBC uses a household population estimate for line 6
of Exhibit 6 of 12,621 when the 2000 Census data has an occupied
household estimate for line 6 of 16,108. Such a large discrepancy would
suggest that the underlying MBC data used to develop the zip code
allocation factors is unreliable.
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
Distnct of Columbia
Mr. Steven J. Horvitz
April 18, 2008
Page 2 of 2
4. Please provide supporting studies or analyses to support the statement by MBC on
Exhibit 4 that their analysis is "the most accurate and detailed of 5-digital+4 ZIP CODE
data." If no such studies or analyses exist, please so state.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
/v/ctlc?i? r?'
Michael R. Bradley
C. Mr. Stephen R. King
Ms. Lorrie Rempher
Page
Michael Bradley
From: Horvitz, Steven [SteveHorvitz@dwt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:17 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Subject: RE: Letter to Mr Horvitz 050908.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
Mike -- I am glad you reminded me. I am fine with the 30 day extension, and i will get you a brief response to
your letters shortly.
From: Michael Bradley [mailto:bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Horvitz, Steven
Cc: Lorrie Rempher; Stephen King; Tony Piasecki; Christy Todd
Subject: Letter to Mr Horvitz 050908.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
Steve - I have attached a letter to this e-mail concerning Comcast's Petition in the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines
and Maple Valley, Washington. Have a nice weekend.
Mike
6/6/2008
Exhibit 2
Declaration of Richard D. Treich
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC
In the Matter of )
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ) CSR - 7856 - E
For Determination of Effective )
Competition in: Algona, Auburn, Pacific, )
WA, et al )
DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. TREICH
IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION
TO COMCAST'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF FILED BY THE CITIES
OF AUBURN, DES MOINES AND MAPLE VALLEY, WASHINGTON
1, Richard D. Treich, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, as follows:
I submit this declaration in support of the Opposition to Comcast's
Petition for Special Relief ("Opposition") filed by the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines and
Maple Valley, Washington in the above-captioned matter. I am fully competent to testify
to the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I would testify to them.
2. I have served as CEO of Front Range Consulting, Inc. ("FRC") since
December 2002. I previously served as Senior Vice President, Rates and Regulatory
Matters for AT&T Broadband (and its predecessor TCI Communications, Inc. ("TCI")).
I was also the Partner-in-Charge of KPMG Peat Marwick's national Cable Television and
Utility consulting practices. I earned my Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
from Susquehanna University in 1975.
3. I have over thirty years of experience in cable and utility rate regulation
matters. I have testified in over 20 different states in 200 proceedings on utility
regulatory matters involving cost-of-service and rate design proceedings. I have co-
authored a book entitled Gas Rate Fundamentals on cost-of-service studies.
4. During my tenure with TCI and AT&T Broadband, I was the senior
executive in charge of the rate and regulatory group. My responsibilities in that capacity
were to direct and approve all of the rate and regulatory filings made by TCI and AT&T
Broadband including Petitions for Special Relief.
5. I have been asked by Cities to comment on the methodology used by
Comcast and its consultant MBC to assign DBS subscribers to the franchise areas
contained in Comcast's Petition for Special Relief filed on or about April 2, 2008, and
placed on Public Notice by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") on April
18, 2008 ("Petition"). The Cities asked for and were granted an extension by Comcast to
file their Opposition on or before June 9, 2008.
6. As a general matter, the FCC has previously accepted the methodology
used by Comcast and Media Business Corp. ("MBC") in approving other petitions for
special relief submitted by Comcast. Having said that, I do not believe that the Cities or
the FCC has ever done a full and complete review of this MBC methodology. Most
times the FCC has accepted the MBC methodology because a local franchising authority
has not objected; that is not the same as if a full review had been performed by the FCC
or a local franchise authority in opposition to the filing. As described below, the
Page 2 of 6
methodology has significant problems and errors that at least with regards to this Petition
make the data submitted on Exhibit 6 unreliable and inaccurate for determining the DBS
percentage in the City of Auburn and potentially the other franchise areas. I recommend
that the FCC either reject this submission because of the errors identified or allow the
Cities and the FCC to complete a full and detailed examination of underlying data with
Comcast having to support its methodology by responding to requests for information
from the Cities.
7. The Cities on April 18, 2008, asked Comcast to provide the supporting
information used by MBC to support its subscriber allocations, but Comcast has not
responded to this request, effectively refusing to provide the requested information.
Without this underlying data, I had to rely on the best available information, which meant
accepting the MBC data without the opportunity to verify its correctness.
8. The timeframes and process for opposing a petition for effective
competition do not allow the Cities an opportunity to fully investigate or critique the
MBC methodology, as Comcast has not provided the Cities with any the underlying data.
The description of the MBC methodology is contained in one paragraph on page 6 within
the Petition and only briefly summarized in Exhibit 4 to the Petition. The paragraph in
the Petition uses quoted terms without either a description or an example of the
methodology and makes reference to a one-page letter from MBC attached to the Petition
as Exhibit 4. From the limited descriptions in the text of the Petition and Exhibit 4 it
would be virtually impossible to recreate the methodology used by MBC or to test the
accuracy of the methodology.
Page 3 of 6
9. Notwithstanding its failure to prove the validity of MBC's DBS subscriber
allocation methodology, Comcast has refused to provide the underlying details as
requested by the Cities in their April 18, 2008, data request. Even if the supporting
documentation was obtained, the Cities would likely not have sufficient time to analyze
the data, given the limited timeframe in which to file an Opposition. This process
severely hinders the ability of the Cities to verify the numerical data supporting
Comcast's request for a determination of effective competition.
10. It is interesting to note that Comcast has chosen to use the five-digit zip
code data from the SBCA rather than the zip+4 data available from MBC. While the
FCC has accepted the SBCA zip code data previously, it is unquestionable that using the
zip+4 would be more reliable as the data from the SBCA would not have to be
"allocated" using the MBC methodology. In Exhibit 4, MBC admits that it does use the
zip+4 data from the United States Postal Service as part of its allocation methodology.
So the critical question is why not just use the zip+4 DBS data instead of having to rely
on an unsupported allocation methodology.
11. With respect to the City of Auburn, I have identified a significant error in
the data contained on Exhibit 6. The City of Auburn has annexed in excess of 25 areas
since the year 2000, making the Occupied Housing Units numbers from the 2000 Census,
which are relied upon by Comcast in its Petition, unreliable, inaccurate and outdated.
The State of Washington's Office of Financial Management maintains a database of the
annexations with the State. Exhibit A attached to this declaration is a printout of the
current annexations for the City of Auburn (please note this printout only contains the
first page of the data base and the page detailing the City of Auburn annexations).
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit B consists of true and correct copies of official reports prepared by the City of
Auburn with respect to two recent annexations in January 2008, which reports were filed
with the Office of Financial Management.
12. Using this widely available information, I have recomputed the DBS
penetration percentage in Auburn by including these annexations. Excluding the two
annexations in 2000 (which might be already included in the 2000 Census data), the City
has grown by 5,294 occupied household based on this Office of Financial Management
official database. Instead of having 16,108 households as reported on Exhibit 6, the City
currently has 21,402 occupied households. Using the DBS subscriber numbers Comcast
provided on Exhibit 6 to the Petition, the DBS penetration rate in Auburn is only 13.55%
(2,900 DBS / 21,402 Occupied Households). This is below the threshold level of 15%
necessary to establish effective competition, as defined in Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 543(1)(1)(B).
13. 1 also obtained the most recent DBS subscriber data from SBCA for the
three zip codes covering the City of Auburn, as identified by MBC, as of April 30, 2008.
(This data is attached as Exhibit C). This data shows DBS subscribers have increased
since the data used by Comcast, but the resulting DBS penetration rate in Auburn is still
only 14.14%, as shown on Exhibit D, which is attached hereto.
14. I declare under penalty of perjury that the facts stated herein, are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Page 5 of 6
This declaration was executed on 6`h day of June, 2008 at Castle Rock, CO.
4 ' e 42
Richard D. Treich
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A
A-.absne Ap"-d by 1„e 011188.1 Flaanelat Man.pmerlt
Annexation: APpmvM hero 0110112000 MmuWh 02 M 2000
M CByrreaw AlpMOeKeM Order
Wllh Federal FIP Codes
Fa ennex=app owd In 164 1990-1909 and 1990-109 deced.a. ate
serer 0lea en eur Internet alta.
Note Thn at Com•ms Mesa stoats CM-4 m COUMY eider. CM alaMDetkN order
end • ht o1-M.- ithcnd epOroYed •nmxehom on lt. _,, OTM
To sea Mn ksl m CtudY onde, s.. the -By C_W sheet m Mn He.
TMs rye contemn ameh0.g 91mr911om Mal vole OFM approved M.( Janwry 1, 2000
whose urgrnal ordmancet - approved Dolor- January 1. 2000.
Nee Them arms eft-t Mat hem been.p ~by OFM forpopW.WO purposes
A-pom panel g app/oval am W -tl W Soma olmotonm am riot rnduded m the hat
Oeceuas fMy new rid .Irmred any lend Pnq Jenrlary 1 1900
=PA. WIngt -(the same urdr- ,N(h.W da being emendad me- mM then ode
(nontonbg- to each &her) rwt snnarM
An-.*k,. OFM
Ordln•nee Eeeetlw Cmelk•la A-Yal Area
+5300080500 Zdeh CRY S,l 80500 Y•ken. ZIMh 667 /128/1998 2001-38 2262001
15300080500 Zla.h cM 53 RO500 vakmw ZWn 781 11/1/1190 2001-73 212872001
, 53000605W ziMh CM 53 60500 Yak.n• 2iMh 977 121162002 200}70 2212003
15300080500 ZIYh city 53 80500 Y•ktn. 2iMh ,057 92612005 2005.132 10119?005
15300080500 bath CRY 53 80510 Yak". Zabel, 1056 92012005 2005-131 101192005
15300060220 Yak, cM 53 80220 Thurton Yam (408)427 12.11992 102-03 tl/302000
1530D060220 Yea, end 57 80220 Thumton Yom 827 2192005 200544 1112005
15300000220 Yekn cM 53 .0220 Thum" YOM 811 8"2005 2005-102 8464005
,5-300080220 Yon :ay 53 90220 Thumt.n YWM 6so R2B2007 2007_205 11272007
,5300060010 Yet- cay 53 6W10 Y1km1• Y•km1• 9332 1/12000 200046 SM2W0
15300080010 Yak- city 53 600,0 Yakma vknu (99J21,99-35 1172000 2000M 5/312000
15300060010 V•k- Cey 53 80010 Yekana Yak- 2000--12 121982000 "WAS 21272001
15300060010 vkma elf 53 800,0 Yakima Yok.ns (2000-321200044 12632000 2W145 212712001
15300000010 Yak- ay 53 RW1O Yatkna YakMV 2001-02 227/1W1 207-07 41112007
5300080010 Yet- CRY 53 80010 Yak- Yak.rn 2001-38 9212001 200,-163 11262001
,5300080010 VMRm tMy 53 80010 Vakmu Vak.ro 2001.16 t11f20D2 2002-37 2262002
,5300080010 Yak- cly 53 80010 V.ken• Yakm. (2001 AG)2001 AA 1112002 2002-37 212WW2
15300060010 Yak- CM 53 80010 Y.*- Vakana 200129 1202002 2002-38 2262002
15700080010 Yakima My 53 60010 Yet V.k- 2004.04 31212004 200456 512712W4
15300080010 Yakim. CM 53 80010 Y.tmu Yakmta 200446 9204001 2Wr 12 2232005
1530000010 yetms City 53 BDO 0 Yetam Yakim. 200452 10/11/204 2005„ 2232005
Is M80010 Yakima erf 53 600 10 Y.kmta Y.ke,. 2004-01 /121/204 200515 2232000
15300080010 Yak- My S3 80010 V.kme Yakmla 20 0528 71102005 2005-125 91312005
/5300080010 Y.kim. CM 53 60070 V.k- Yak- 2006-02 2119/1006 200671 S/26/2006
,5300080010 Yak- Crly 53 80070 Y.kmt. Yak-. 2006-64 22712006 2008-70 5202006
,5700000010 Yaklma CRY 53 60070 Yak- Y•kant 2006-06 4920% 200672 S128/2006
157D00600 10 Y•inn CAy 53 :0010 Y.kM,. Yskima 200652 127/02006 2007-25 22321107
/5300060010 Yekmv CRv 53 800,0 Va4mr Y•kttn. 2007.007 19182007 2007-0 5252007
15300080010 Yekm,. cM 53 80070 Ya4mr Y•k.na 2007-46 11"200 2007-214 11202007
15300079975 .CO. sewn 53 79975 Cork Y.CO. 347 101/311893 200010 41142000
1530007%25 Woodland CM 53 79625 COMIC W-dMnd (Mlt) 990 611WD03 2003.70 92712003
1530007%25 Woodland cM 53 7%25 Condit, Woodland !20x4) %9 6116203 200349 S1272W3
1530007%25 Woodland cM 53 79625 Cox6t, NbodMW (pan) 1007 sr3a004 200 5.92 6127/1005
15300079625 Woodland city 53 7%25 Conft Woodland (pad) (1007)1050 5132020205 200592 81232005
, 5300079625 Woodland cM S] 79625 Condit, Woo fiend (W 145 5116/200s 2005114 8/702005
153007%25 Woodland cif 53 7%25 COMIC woodland (OM) 147 5/30/2005 2DOS730 101172005
15300079625 Woodland MY 53 79625 Condit, Woodland (pan) 1052 7101005 200&152 11!302005
157000 7%25 000064,19 clly SJ ]%25 Con9t, WoodlarW lpedl ,074 327!2006 22006156 ,1292008
1510007%25 Woodland CM 53 7%25 CotsMZ Woodland (PM11 1075 51172006 2006159 11292006
15300079625 Woodland COY 53 79625 Co,Ytt Woodland (pen) 1095 491200 ] 2007-107 5252007
153000795% W-d-ae CM 53 79590 King Wrrod= 291 11202001 200222 101112002
153010795% Wood-Me COY 53 79SOD King WoodinvlM 343 9292003 200344 11/2 003
/5300079590 Wooda,Ma cif 53 79590 King W..dW.1% 342 9292003 2110323 11252103
15 300079 3 80 Vdmmm
: CM 53 79380 Okanogan Winthrop 578 6152006 2006-97 811512006
1 5 30007 9 360 V. mm. Cal, 53 79380 Ok.rKg.n YN ,Co 576 /9117/2006 2006,29 61302006
,5300079360 VNmmmp cay 53 79360 Ok•not; Noniron 502 8182006 2006126 813MM
15300079380 VAWnrop CdY 53 783:0 Ok.nog.n VKWhroO 593 81162'07 2007 .204 11272007
15300079275 VAnlack CM 53 79275 La,n VNnleck S00 813111990 200084 8262000
15100079275 Wlnlack CM 53 79275 Uwe yMnbck (600Wmend,ng 800 11511989 2000.84 61262000
15300079275 Vd.Ic. C" 53 79275 Lawn VAnbck (800)817 51302010 200084 6282000
15300079275 VAN-I, C f 53 79275 Levin VVW.k 7% 1281119% 200152 212 1
15300079275 VW n"" CM 53 79275 Lew. Wnleck (7%1790C-.led 1216119% 200 1-52 5/312002
15300079275 VANOCk Cry 53 79275 Levin VV.I k %9 115204 200497 1129204
1530.79275 WAN«k CAy 53 79275 Lrvns "Mock 865 121132005 200611 212112
06
15300079275 VANo<k My 53 79275 L.wd VV.4. 897 3252006 200628 511,2
006
15300079275 "Nock CM 53 79275 Levin Wlnlock 914 12/182006 2007-10 2212007
1530007:370 Whde Saanbn coy 53 78330 K.ckW VdWe S.&Mn 19M122% 1220190 20067 222000
1530007330 Whde Salmon City 53 78330 KackiW White S k-n I9W 12289 122611999 2000-0 2/M
OC'D
1530007:330 VAN. :.anon e0y 53 78330 KkCkaat Wide Salmon 1085462 82/1990 2000-92 WW
153D0076330 What Saknon cM 53 7:330 " Ant VnMS Salmon (1996-58W2)2000-S7W 51302000 200682 5/302000
1530007:330 Wall. S.knon city 53 78130 KackBat 16%4. S•knoh 20004-69: 911:2W 2006118 ,1222000
'S 3000 7 0 310 What Sakmn COV S3 78330 KkcktM Whde Sohn. 2000.0.702 91192000 2000-125 ,11302000
153DO078330 Whds Sea- ctly 53 7:33D K.1kb1 Who. S.knon 2001-/ 1-719 112012001 2002.77 8292002
,530007:330 NAPA: S•knon CM 53 78330 KaCkaat WTA. Saknen (2001-11-719)2002-02-725 2/-62002 2002-77 61292002
153D107330 VMd. Se.1nn cmy 53 7:33D Kbekdat What Satmon 2042-750 61152004 200461 8127/-001
153DO078330 VAYt. Stanon ley 53 78330 Kkckd.1 %A%4. Sakllon 204.12-754 12126204 2005-A 2/1512005
1530007:330 vy"t Saknon CRY 53 76330 Kackeat WMRe Set". 200&2_750 211Sr2005 200&78 2252005
15300078330 yVhb Saa,on COY 53 78330 K.Ckdal WAR. Salmon 200&08-767 01162005 2005-03 9/312005
1 5 3000 7 8 3 30 V0,4. Sea- cif 53 76330 KkckiM Wha. S.Imon 200&16765 1/112005 200SA1 22af100SS
low 0
9 33 1
11.60 0
0.00 0
167.50 456
0.00 0
2500 6
911 40 0
141.s0 26%
0.00 0
0.24 1
93.00 1
13 75 0
3 25 3
29 0
6% 00 764
6 31 1
W 457
113 00 0
8 60 0
03300 357
7
6100
10.00 0
12.35 1
323 6
1.59 0
0.00 0
43.19 2
38 00 5
11.45 9
11 W 4
S& W 16
43 11 2
5 05 5
OM t
1 75 1
44 0
25 0
1.3 0
1x58 0
9 S0 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
7.07 0
0DO 0
5010 0
17.00 0
5 69 1
40.00 1
391 3
1 96 1
4 66 0
OW 0
2 52 D
0.26 1
S DO 0
000 0
0.51 1
0.69 0
046 1
1.02 0
0.86 1
2000 1t :naa.
2000 boundaries
12
15
0 AMD - Amends legal
0 0 HIS - PopMU added to rate, Ind Wed in Wand Cemus 2000 boundaries
0 0 AMC) - HIS -Amends afdne data
422 993
0 0 AMD - Amens M.CM. data due to cct act-
6 5
% 201
2.560 6,300
0 0 AMD - Amnon .....M- efacl- data
t 19
2
0 0
740 1 942 R-d camus.
1 4
429 153
0 0
0 0
202 779 Has GO
7 12
0 0 HIS - Included n federal C.- 2000 b..,cl s.
1 2
5 24
0 0
0 0 AMD - Armnda legal
1 2
5 15
a 23
3 7
10 4:
2
5 13
1 4
1 2
0 0
0 0ST-
0 0
HIS - PcpI4U edd.d tp,mo InCk dad in Iaderat Census 20. bounden..
AMD - HIS - Amanda lag.!
AMD - HIS - Amends I.gat
HIS - klcluded M federal Census 2000 boundanes.
AMD - Amends la9al
HIS - In'"ad m ied-1 C
AMD - HIS - Amends legal
0 AMD - Amends legal
3 Replects dd. 200412-752
0
2
EsP-
!At EtreE Cede EatM nsm• LtAD Stab Code PIPt 88
15300005210 Hall- CAy 53 05210
15300005210 Bay-. CRY 53 05210
15300001695 Bes. A. Village Iowa 53 01695
15300001995 Be.- Art Vb9e 'own S3 04695
15300004475 Bone Ground city 53 01175
15300004175 Be"% Ground City 53 04475
15300004175 Bsn11 Ground city 53 04475
15300001175 Santa Ground coy 53 04475
153000014]5 Ball11 Ground City 53 04475
15300004475 Ban% Gmund Pty 53 04175
153000011]5 Be11M Ground City 53 ON75
15300004475 earns Ground CAY
53 04475
15300004475 Battle Ground City 53 04175
15300004 /75 Battle Ground My 53 0x75
t 570000//75 Berle Ground city 53 04475
15300004475 Ban11 Ground Cry 53 04475
15300003100 Auburn city 53 03180
15300003160 Auburn city 53 03180
1530000]140 Auburn city 53 03160
15300003160 Auburn c8/ S3 03190
:5300003160 Auburn Pty 53 030
+5300003160 Auburn City 53 03:8
s0
+5300003160 Auburn CM 53 03180
,5300003140 Auburn My 53 03160
+5300003160 Auburn Crty 53 03180
15300003100 Auburn cAV 53 03160
15300003160 Auburn city 53 03160
15]00007160 Auburn city 57 03180
+S30D003180 Auoi m Cry 53 03180
:5300003180 Auburn cry 53 03160
t 5300003180 Auburn cry 53 03180
:5300003180 AuDUm City 53 03160
15300003:60 Auburn My 53 03160
'5300007180 Auburn cry 53 03180
+5300003180 Auburn Cry, 53 03180
153000031:0 Auburn end 53 03180
+5300003,80 Au"M Cry 53 03180
15300003160 Auburn city 53 03180
+53090031:O Auburn Cry 53 03160
;13100000103100 5 33 1 6 0 Auburn City 53 03180
Auburn City 53 03180
15300003100 Auburn city 53 03180
15300003160 Auburn city 53 03180
,5300003075 A,0n City 53 03075
;5300002585 Arlington Ply 53 02565
5300002585 Arington city 53 025115,
'5300002585 AMngton c8/ 53 02565
15300002565 Arington City, 53 ('2565
,5300002565 Arlington c8/ 57 02565
15300002585 AMngton city 53 025e5
,5300002565 AMngton cry 53 02565
+5300002585 Arkngl0n city SJ 02585
'5300002585 AMngon cry 53 02585
+5300002565 Arlington c8/ 53 02595
15300002585 AMngtoo Cry 53 02585
:5300002585 Aringtm city 53 02585
15300002585 Arngton cry 53 02505
53000025:5 Arington coy 53 02585
5300001990 Ana<eMS City 53 01990
15300001990 Anscores Cry 53 01990
'5300000905 Airway Height City 53 00905
15300000905 Arway Height cry 53 00905
15,00000905 A,wey HeigMa My 53 00905
153-ODOOl DO Aba.d- City 53 00100
'5300000100 Aberdeen city 53 001D0
'5300000100 Aberdeen c4v 53 00100
c-,ft CRe2own
Keg Balls-
King Belle-
King Beaus Am Vast,
Ktn9 Beaus AM V1111s9
Clark Babb Ground
Clark BsNe Ground
Clark Battle Ground
Clark Battle, Ground
Clark BadN Ground
Cork Babb Ground
Gar, Battle Ground
c= Bsltle Ground
Cllr, Batlb Ground
Clark :Oft Ground
CUM Batlla Ground
Clart Berra Ground
King Abu' (Part)
Keg Auburn (Pad)
Kkg Auburn (Paitl
Pisrc• Auburn lPaAl
ZP Auburn (PM)
PNrce Auburn (Part)
King Auburn (Part)
King Auburn (Pan)
King Aubum(Per)
King Aubum (Pad)
King Aubum (Part)
Pis- Auburn (Pan)
King Auburn (Part)
King Auburn (Par)
Plerce Aubum (Pan)
King Auburn (Par)
King Auburn (Part)
King Auburn (Pad)
King Auburn (Pad)
King Auburn (Part)
Kirt9 AuDum (Pad)
King Auburn (Pad)
King Auburn (Part)
Keg Auburn (PaA)
K.9 Auburn , Part)
King Auburn (PaA)
King Auburn (PaA)
Asoon Asohn
Srrohenash AMgton
Sneh-h A"*,
Snohomish Arington
Snohomish A".,
Snohomish Arlington
Snon-h Arlington
Snohomish Arlington
Snoh-h AMrglen
Snohomish Arhmyt-
Snohomnh Arend-
Snehomnh A"-
Snehomdh Arlington
Snonomnh Arlington
Snohomish Arington
Ska9: Anacertes
Skagit Anacore,
SpokaM A-y Height
Spokane A-V Height
Spokane A-y Height
Gray, Herber Aberde.
Grays Herber Abe:=
Grays Huber Aberdeen
Ordbsnu nnElls Ckl-
Numaer Dab
5607 3212006
Res. 7205 12162005
Res. 203 6/12!2007
Res. 203 6/1212007
9"15 6/13/1996
(96-015199-015 7/15/1999
99439 11142000
01-010 57162001
01-005 11192001
04-017 112611004
O5-021 121152005
06-012 111192006
07-0 3 3152007
07-010 6632007
074, a I ON2007
06-01 21212009
5346 2292000
5370 1262000
5412 71142000
5467 12292000
(5487)5501 121!1001
5512 21262001
5505 2/14/1001
5350 3/12000
SS 16 21162002
5731 212003
5732 2712003
5774 71162003
5005 122004
R. 3543 9/172003
5932 6/152005
5937 9712005
5968 2/12006
5907 2/12006
5966 2/12006
5983 1272006
5982 1272006
5961 1272006
5960 1272006
5979 1272005
(5979)6046 10252006
6121 171x,'"
6122 /!/2006
2003.631 121102003
124 1242000
1229 3272000
1231 61162000
1251 1292001
126x4 122.11002
1209-4 12232002
1353 92911004
1372 7262005
1374 12/142005
1305 22612006
1399 91132006
1410 27152007
1415 919/1007
1420 6/132007
2570 3112002
2716 3112006
C-375 516/1997
C.6 30 111142006
(C-6301C541 11/142006
6322 1292002
(6404)6410 9162006
6404 9162006
Os, as Total Oocuplsd
CerlMcala App -d Arss Haualn9 tlauslrl9 Teet
EM No. Date In Acres unlla tines, Population tpaelY 14olaeorn
2006.160 1112WD0S t 30 0 0 0 ST - BA - BA weh King Co CRa 37937
200754 3264=7 0.24 0 0 0 BA - BA with R"-,l - R., 1216
2003-01 62772D03 0 09 0 0 0 BA- BOYnd1ry ad"briem wen Be"-.
2003.6 6272003 0,20 0 0 0 BA-Boundary ad"t-nt-1, R•N.-
2000-11 216,12000 23.00 5 5 t1
2000.11 2162000 0.00 0 0 0 AMD - Amends "at
2000-20 2,1162000 160.00 13 12 26
2001-143 6292001 39.00 0 0 0
2002-:1 2/62002 142.00 4 3 e
200" 2/152005 40 1 0 0
2006-1 2/152006 100.00 16 16 14
20074 129,11007 260.00 17 14 91
2007-57 31302007 7.56 0 0 0
2007-126 724/1007 434.00 57 43 107
2007 - 195 :1162007 163.00 19 14 46
2006 - 29 2262006 43.00 1 , 4
2000-34 3262000 453.00 967 933 2.733
2000.65 6292100 22 50 31 26 79
2000-09 6!3041000 150 / t 1
2001.116 716r1001 4000 0 0 0
2001.116 7102001 0.00 0 0 O AMD - Anwnda 119.1 description
2001-115 716,11901 415.00 1 1 2
2001-114 7/811001 4.54 0 0 0
2001-117 720/1001 1.05 2 2 3
2002-36 2262002 91,00 95 91 271
2003-30 2262003 13.64 21 22 ,9
2003-3 1 21272003 22.94 45 38 90
200}78 1020/1003 3200 0 0 0 correct"
200441 51142004 1.33 / 0 0
200454 5272004 72. g0 1 1 2 BA - Boundary adj. •72.59 apps to Auburn .0 39 aces to PacAc
2005-134 102011005 271.00 9 7 17
2005139 11212005 1 00 1 1 3
2006.22 21242006 4,00 1 1 1 AMD- Amends legal description.
2006-23 21242006 9.00 1 1 4
2006.21 2!112006 5.50 I 1 1
2006-101 8/162006 a 97 0 0 0
2006.100 81162006 29.57 0 0 0
200609 9182006 3 69 0 0 0
2008-98 61162006 9 21 0 0 0
2006148 111172006 162 0 0 0
2006146 11//72006 O.DO 0 0 0AMD- Amend, legal description
2006 - 20 2/172006 2906.00 3.796 3666 1, u8
2008 - 32 2/162006 121500 1.506 1 463 4,300
2004.3 2/11/1004 -25.00 0 0 0 DE -
200019 2262000 76.00 72 71 214
2000-60 9302000 4,10 7 ) 24
200693 6/312000 176.00 6 4 6
2001-90 4112001 57,00 3 3 10
2003-4 220/1003 144,00 7 6 17
2003-11 2212003 51.00 a 7 36
2004-93 1122/1004 100 1 1 1
2005-93 6212005 1.00 1 1 2
200&M 2262008 9 66 6 5 14
200667 5262006 75 30 252 243 701
2006136 101162006 1.74 1 1 2
2007-M 31302007 7 39 2 2 7
2007-129 7252007 376 00 9 7 19
2007-:30 7252007 15.60 1 1 2
200241 31142002 '5.00 0 0 0
2006102 9162006 4211 3 2 4
2001.7 2/142001 1.45 D 0 0 HIS - Included in bd.n it fans. 2000 boundaries.
2007-771 8/302007 82.99 4 4 4
2007-174 6/302007 0,00 0 0 - AMD -Amends .Mlle data
2002-53 5232002 56.60 0 0 0
2006150 11172006 0.00 0 0 0AMD- Amend, legal description
2006150 111172006 36.00 0 0 0
SP-C1Y Notations
AMD - Amending Ordinance.
BA - Boundary adpistmem batyaen hw Mies or a c8/ and county - Not on snnesatron
DE - Daemweatlen
ST - Only sheet We bang annes•d.
HIS - Indrealas an snnesshon 11'at Is Intad M nntorKal purooses onty TM annexed populabon
N
E
e Foderel Cede" Annaeeeen OFM Total OccuyNE
wr
n
y
TM
' Ea dod
a OMInsOCe E1-"- Ce10ACeY APP-1 Abe H-hq No-" Tebl
e v retwr " Ent4y CeM Erdit name LEAD Ebb Cede Fos SS C.- ty CDyff- NetnWr DAB Fr Ne DOW In Acne UnMe U
ft P W
e
. o
Mbe 6Ne1e1 Netodl-
Olementt Ne m Pelernhl"s m IcsN On erlginet ennennq a Meow the hot euDeeeuentlF Won emended.
Th. engMM enlMenee numpor h oncb?eE m gere0hoeee end " emenelnq enl...nco h e ., s ?h.- to M. nqM
la.q., n'1105011 t tY Prdmentt t t 17 amenee orementt tOSOI
03M3M
Exhibit B
SPECIAL POPULATION CENSUS
SUMMARY SHEET
Total Population: 4,300 Year or Ordinance: 2008
Uses 1,2
City/Town: Auburn, WA
r 1 t:?, ,:. (t)
,
(z
'
(4) f.
tr . _ a. .rc To#at
- '
Vacant
Vacant Occupied fop. Per Percont, Percent
Housing Mous)n9 Hpus>lrtig Ucc. HU - Opp
pie4
yac rit _
Units Per Structure Units :. /)nits (1)42) Population (4Y(3) ?s)I(t}s (2}I(1)
1-Unit Structures 1,502 43 1,459 4.266 2.92392 0-9713i U. 0280
2-Unit Structures
3-Unk Structures 3 0 3 9 3.00000 .00000 .00000
4-Unit Structures
5 or more Units
•
Manufactured Homes
Special'
1
1. Totals 1, 506 43 1,463 4,277 2.92344 0.97145 .02855
'Special Housing: Unusual living quarters not generally considered a housing unit (e.g., boats, boxcars, tents, etc.). Only
counted when occupied by person(s) meeting 'resident' criteria. Specify type of housing in comments section below.
Group Quarters `
t,.. .
Nursing/Convalescent Homes Number of Facfitties ' °.
3 Population:
23
College Dormitories
MentaLlCorrectional Institutions
Military Installations (e.g., barracks, BEQ)
Other (Specify):
2. Total Group Quarters 3 23
= Number of Staff Hours Worked
_,H
Census Costs*"; 4 {
? o
tf k
f k
n
o Cost/Eatlma;ed Value
0 n
n
w
wn
,.
City staff w/o additional pay and/or volunteer staff $
City staff and/or hired staff/consultant with payment $
Transportation, supplies, etc. if not included above $
Total $
"This information is used to provide cities with an estimate of how much It costs to census. Your assistance in providing this Information is
valuable and appreciated.
Did the enumerators collect additional information or perform other tasks during the census? Yes No (circle one)
?otnh?t?ti?;
Census Administrator or Contact Person
Name Shelley Coleman
J
Signed: 02/20/20U8
Telephone #: 253-804-5019 (Mayo (Date)
Attest "",? 02/20/2008
Da Hours of Operation: M- F Sam- 5 pm ( ity/Town Clerk or Census Administrator) (Date)
Office of Financial Management State of Washington Revised 9/2006
SPECIAL POPULATION CENSUS
SUMMARY SHEET
Total Population: 11,448
LMes 1+2
Year or Ordinance: Ordinance No. 6121
City/Town: Auburn
{ 7 s f `
VnitsfierStructure
Nousln?
"Units J2)
Vacant'
Housing
Units (3)
Ocwji?jed
Hotfging
#1H2).
,?' +,. x
' ; {
Pop6l tiiDi>'
P.op > $r
.OCc, HU, "
{gjn13)
Percent.
Occupied
(3y(t) ;
Percent
Vacant
(2)/11)
1-Unit Structures 2,871 94 2,777 8,788 3.16457 0.96726 0.03274
2-unit Structures 38 1 37 115 3.10811 0.97368 0.02632
3-Unit Structures 33 2 31 54 1.74194 0.93939 0.06061
4-Unit Structures 24 0 24 39 1.62500 1.00000 0.00000
5 or more Units 474 16 458 1,187 2.59170 0.96624 0.03376
Manufactured Homes 355 16 339 899 2.65192 0.95493 0.04501
Special'
1. Totals 3,795 129 3,666 11.082 3.02291 0.96601 0.03399
'Special Housing: Unusual living quarters not generally considered a housing unit (e.g., boats, boxcars, tents, etc.). Only
counted when occupied by person(s) meeting 'resident criteria. Specify type of housing in comments section below.
Group Quarters Number of Facilities `.. Population
Nursing/Convalescent Homes 0 0
College Dormitories 1 366
Mental/Correctional Institutions 0 0
Military Installations (e.g., barracks, BEQ) 0 0
Other (Specify): 0 0
2. Total Group Quarters 1 366
} -Census Costs~ ?•.-yc Staff
Number Hours Worked
,
{ '
4
City staff w/o additional pay and/or volunteer staff $
City staff and/or hired staff/consultant with payment $
Transportation, supplies, etc. it not included above $
Total I s
"This Information is used to provide cities wilh an estimate of how much it costs lo census. Your assistance in providing this Information is
valuable and appreciated. ?
Did the enumerators collect additional information or perform other tasks during the census? Yes t. No 1 (circle one)
Gorrrments: '
Census Administrator or Contact Person
Name Shelley Coleman
Sined: 01/31/2008
Telephone u: 253-804-5019 ayor) (Date)
Attest O 1 31 2008
Da s/Hours of Operation: 11- $ m- 5 Pm ('fy/rovm Clerk or Census Administrator) (Date)
Office of Financial Management State of Washington Revised W006
Exhibit C
ECTR - Effective Competition Tracking Report
Provided by
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association
Pursuant to Section 76.907(c) of the FCC Rules, and your effective competition
tracking request dated May 7, 2008 please find the following Direct-to-Home (DTH)
satellite subscriber numbers per zip code (and/or zip+4 where necessary). The
provision and use of this Effective Competition Tracking Report is governed by and
subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Provision and Use of
Confidential Data, between your company and SBCA.
Report Date: May 9, 2008
ZIP Code DTH Count
98001 2101
98002 1919
98092 2814
Data is current through 4/30/2008
Report Prepared by:
Martin Esteves
Manager, Membership and Data Management
202-349-3630
mesteves@sbca.org
Methodology: Direct-To-Home (DTH) subscriber data reflects aggregated DIRECTV, DISH Network and
Motorola Access Center (C-Band) residential subscriber totals. The following data collection procedures are
applied by Members in the normal course of business: a) single accounts with multiple receivers are only
counted once; b) commercial and test accounts are not included; c) each occupied unit served in a
multiple dwelling unit building has been counted as a separate residential subscriber; d) zip codes are
taken from service locations (not billing addresses, where different); e) inactive accounts are routinely
removed; f) invalid (undeliverable) addresses have been corrected where known; g) courtesy or
complimentary accounts are included; and h) zip code information for Members' subscribers is periodically
updated to reflect changes to zip codes by the United States Postal Service.
SATELLITE BROADCASTING AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
1730 M Street NW • Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20036 • phone 202-349-3620 • fax 202-349-3621
Exhibit D
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Revised Comcast Exhibit 6
Exhibit D
Column: A B C D E F G H I J K
Total DBS % of DBS
Allocation Factor Households in Subscribers Per DBS Subscribers Penetration in
Total Households (Percentage of Zip Franchise Area Zip Code (as in Franchise Area Franchise Area
Per Zip Code (as Codes Households (Column D x provided by Allocation Factor (Column G x Current Occupied (Column I
Ln Community State ZIP provided by MBC) Located Within) Column E) SBCA) see Colum E) Column H) Housing Units Column J)
1 Auburn WA 98001 8.875 10.86% 964 2.101 10.86% 228 21,402
2 Auburn WA 98002 12,621 99.14% 12,512 1,919 99.14% 1,902 21,402
3 Auburn WA 98092 8,811 31.82% 2,804 2,814 31.82% 895 21,402
4 Total 3.026 14.14%
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Anica Olson, do herby certify that on this 6th day of June 2008, that true and correct
copies of the foregoing Opposition of the Cities of Auburn, Des Moines and Maple Valley,
Washington to Comcast's Petition for Special Relief have been sent via U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, to the following:
Steven A. Broeckaert, Esq.
Media Bureau -- Policy Division
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-A865
Washington, DC 20554
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Steven Horvitz, Esq.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
Ms. Diana Quinn
City Clerk/Treasurer
City of Algona
402 Warde Street
Algona, WA 98001
Ms. Mayene Miller
Finance Director
City of Black Diamond
24301 Roberts Drive
Black Diamond, WA 98010
Mr. Jon Funfar
Media Services Manager
City of Enumclaw
1339 Griffin Avenue
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Ms. Sandy Paul-Lyle
City Clerk
City of Pacific
100 - 3rd Avenue, S.E.
Pacific, WA 98047
Mr. Derek Matheson
City Manager
City of Covington
16720 S.E. 27 - l" Street, Suite 100
Covington, WA 98042
Mr. Frank Iriarte
Public Works Coordinator
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
nica Olson