WPCc 2MB RK<3|j-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic\&P2g% ZXTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#HP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\"\XP|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;Xa$G,',G\  P6G;PW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP2 <KZ0 3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2.4K,K / V1!2"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1!` hp x (#44` hp x (#2<"`4#~6$8%:toc 2toc 2"` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3#` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4$` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5%` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#2C& ='v(?(?)Atoc 6toc 6&` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7' toc 8toc 8(` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9)` hp x (#44` hp x (#2*K* D+*F,HH-fJindex 1index 1*` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa,` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption-;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2M.\K/L0L1bM_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference/44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference04#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #1'd#2p}wC@ #2IP2}N3N4O5Oa1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf4:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf5E` ` `  2aS6{P7$Q8Q9Ra5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf7[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf8f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf9q 2:YKS KUI"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""(>(IIT"Ԍ S- ` x5.` ` KDTV contends that it first raised the issue of achieving a uniform channel position  xthroughout the San Francisco ADI in June of 1993 in mustcarry election letters to TCI and other cable  S- x[operators in which it specifically requested carriage on channel 14.4 X- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#See Exhibit A to KDTV's Petition. KDTV acknowledges that it also indicated that it would consider agreeing to an alternate channel if that channel could be secured on other systems serving the market.4 KDTV states that it was not carried  xon channel 14 by a majority of the systems serving the San Francisco market at any time during the 1994 xy1996 election period. KDTV asserts that it reiterated its election for carriage on channel 14 in September  S8- xof 1996 in a second set of mustcarry/retransmission election letters.v8A X -ԍ#X\  P6G;P#See Exhibit B to KDTV's Petition.v KDTV explains that following this  x[notification, it entered into negotiations with TCI which ultimately proved fruitless. KDTV asserts that  xin the course of negotiations with TCI it was told that consolidating carriage of KDTV on channel 14 with  xrespect to all of TCI's San Francisco systems would be cost prohibitive because TCI would have to  xremove traps currently in place in connection with the expanded, premium, and pay cable services carried on channel 14.  S - ` x6.` ` KDTV argues that, pursuant to Section 614(b)(6) of the Communications Act, it has the  S - xyright to be carried on its overtheair channel.  X-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Communications Act  614(b)(6), 47 U.S.C.  534(b)(6). KDTV asserts that the Commission has repeatedly stated  xthat cable operators are responsible for accommodating UHF stations making onchannel carriage demands,  xincluding bearing the costs associated with the replacement of traps necessary to permit viewing of the  xstation, onchannel, by all subscribers of the system. KDTV further argues that there has been no  xallegation that its signal quality is inadequate at system headends, nor that the satellite programming  xLservices currently carried on channel 14 have a legal right to that channel. KDTV contends that although  xTCI has known since June of 1993 of its need to accommodate KDTV on channel 14, TCI has shown total  xdisregard for the Station's channel positioning rights. KDTV claims that it expends considerable sums  S- xyof money to market itself throughout its ADI as channel 14 both overtheair and on cable. y X- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#KDTV states that since TCI serves 83 percent of total cable television subscribers in the San Francisco ADI,  xsecuring a uniform channel position on TCI's systems would ensure a uniform channel position for KDTV throughout  yO-the market.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѝ The Station  xargues that TCI's actions have frustrated KDTV's efforts and caused it to incur substantial additional costs to promote its existence to its viewership due to its varying channel position.  S- ` &x7.` ` In opposition, TCI argues that it should not be required to implement KDTV's  xrepositioning request because uniform carriage of the Station on channel 14 would impose tremendous  xZcosts on TCI and its customers, contrary to the public interest. TCI requests, instead, that the Commission  x/officially recognize cable channel 14 as "unavailable" on TCI's San Francisco systems for mustcarry  Sx- xpurposes. x  X#-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI's Opposition at 2.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ь TCI states that it is carrying KDTV on all of the cable systems at issue and that 18 of its Bay  xzArea cable systems, representing 673,953 customers, carry KDTV on channel 14. TCI contends that  x@KDTV's request imposes a unique burden on TCI. TCI argues that, based on its calculations,  xLaccommodating KDTV's demand of universal carriage on channel 14 would cost TCI more than 4 million" ,>(>(IIk"  S- xdollars.B  Xh- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#See Attachment A to TCI's opposition which includes a chart showing TCI's calculation of the costs involved  yOQ-in implementing KDTV's channel location request.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#B TCI asserts that the high costs are attributable to the fact that many of its Bay Area cable  x\systems place traps on channel 14, so that the channel is not available as part of the basic service tier  S- x.("BST").r A X- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI claims that the traps were not added to frustrate KDTV but were deployed prior to the passage of the  Xz-1992 Cable Act, at a time when the cable operator was under no obligation to reserve channel 14 for KDTV#Xj\  P6G;9XP#.r TCI states that whether the programming service offered on channel 14 is a premium service  xor a cable programming service tier ("CPST") service, implementing KDTV's request would require the  xremoval of existing traps from channel 14 and the installation of new traps to prevent unauthorized  xviewing of the relocated programming service. Specifically, TCI claims that the repositioning would  xLrequire the removal of existing negative and positive traps and the retrapping of more than 120,000 cable  S- xcustomers. Xc - xyЍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI acknowledges that it could reposition KDTV to channel 14 on some cable systems in the Bay Area without removing any traps. TCI estimates that the cost of this undertaking would be 4.3 million dollars or approximately  S- x=$35.00 per subscriber.NT X- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI states that if the costs are spread across all system customers (instead of just those customers with an  yO-existing channel 14 trap) the per subscriber cost would be $6.84.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#N TCI calculates the cost of relocating KDTV by multiplying the total number of  xcustomers served by the systems at issue by the cost of the traps used and then adding that resulting figure  xto the contractor's cost to replace traps. TCI claims that in addition to the engineering cost of 4.3 million, TCI would have to spend more than onehalf million dollars on customer notifications.  S - ` #x8.` ` TCI argues that the costs associated with KDTV's request justify a denial of the Station's  S - xpetition. TCI contends that the Commission specifically recognized in Greater Dayton Public Television  X=-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#10 FCC Rcd. 1048 (1995).#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ю  xthat the high costs associated with implementing a particular channel positioning request can justify its  S - xdenial. TCI asserts that although in Greater Dayton the Bureau found that the cable operator failed to  xmake the necessary showing, the facts of the instant case are more compelling. TCI contends that the  S4- xrepositioning involved in Greater Dayton was projected to cost over $300,000, whereas the repositioning  S- x>costs here exceed 4 million dollars. TCI argues that the magnitude of the costs in this case are "prima  S- xfacie evidence" that the cable systems and their customers will be substantially impacted by implementing  xKDTV's request. TCI states that the passthrough of the costs at issue will have a significant adverse effect on local customer bills.  SJ- ` x9.` ` TCI contends that the equities involved in this case compel a denial of KDTV's channel  x=location request. TCI argues that KDTV is now in a relatively favorable channel position on each of the  S- xcable systems at issue.Z~  X$- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#See Attachment A to TCI's opposition showing that KDTV is carried on channel 11 on most of the systems  yO%-at issue and on channels 10, 15 and 20 with respect to the remaining systems.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#Z TCI further asserts that KDTV fails to explain in detail why carriage on channel  xL14 is so important as to justify the expenditure of more than 4 million dollars on TCI's part. TCI argues  xthat it is unlikely that an audience interested in Spanishlanguage programming will be deterred from",>(>(II"  xwatching KDTV one of a limited number of Spanishlanguage offerings in the market because of its  xchannel position. TCI states that, in any event, it is prepared to assist KDTV in its marketing efforts.  xTCI analogizes the instant situation to cases where a cable system is not configured to operate on a certain  xchannel. TCI points out, for example, that a cable system that offers 35 channels is not required to  xaccommodate a broadcaster's request for carriage on channel 40. TCI argues that given the tremendous  xcosts involved in this case the Commission should find that the requested channel is "unavailable" just  xLas if the systems did not have the capacity to operate on channel 14. Finally, TCI asks that in the event  xMthat the Commission grants KDTV's request, TCI be given 6 months from the date of the decision to  S- x.come into regulatory compliance.) X( - xxЍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI notes that the Commission afforded TCI scheduling relief in Greater Dayton Public Television, 10 FCC  yO -Rcd. 1048 (1995) at 7.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#) TCI states that such temporary relief is necessary to afford TCI the time to purchase and install new traps.  SH - ` x10.` ` In reply, KDTV argues that it is statutorily entitled to carriage on its overtheair channel  xand is not obligated to accept TCI's arbitrary channel assignments. KDTV states that it is unaware of any  xMcases in which the Commission has granted a cable system's request for relief on the basis of the cost  xyinvolved to replace traps. KDTV argues that based on TCI's own data, the cable operator has overstated  x/the cost of compliance with KDTV's channel location request. First, KDTV contends that the costs  xincurred by TCI as a result of missed opportunities to comply with the Station's request should be  SX- xdeducted from TCI's cost calculations.wXA X9- xЍ#X\  P6G;P#KDTV contends that TCI's past inaction in response to KDTV's request for carriage on channel 14 may have  xcontributed to the cost of compliance today. KDTV asserts that although TCI has been on notice since 1993 that  x<it was required to carry the Station on channel 14, TCI did not petition the Commission for relief from KDTV's  xchannel positioning rights until recently. KDTV contends that in the interim, the cost to TCI of compliance with  xthe Station's channel positioning request has increased by at least the number of new subscribers trapped out of  yOB-channel 14 whose traps must now be removed to comply with KDTV's channel positioning rights.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#w Second, KDTV argues that TCI has not demonstrated that the  xreplacement of existing traps is the most costeffective means of fulfilling TCI's channel positioning  xobligations. KDTV states that on systems where TCI has established a digital tier, TCI could simply  xmove the program currently located on channel 14 to the digital tier which would not require the purchase  x[or installation of new traps. Third, KDTV asserts that TCI does not provide any information as to how  xit determined the contractor's cost to replace traps, such as whether TCI received bids from vendors  xsupplying the traps. Fourth, KDTV contends that in calculating the contractor's cost to replace traps, TCI  xjmultiplied the number of subscribers actually trapped out on channel 14 by a certain figure depending on  x.the type of trap used. KDTV states that in determining the cost of the traps themselves, however, TCI  S- xmultiplied the cost of the trap involved by the total number of subscribers on each system, rather than by  xthe number of subscribers trapped out on channel 14 of each system. KDTV asserts that TCI does not  xexplain why it would have to buy new traps for all of its subscribers when only some of its subscribers  xare presently trapped or why it would purchase new traps for all of its subscribers but only arrange for the installation of new traps for those subscribers who are currently trapped.  S- ` x11.` ` KDTV provides a spreadsheet showing the cost of purchasing and installing new traps in  S- xonly those homes that are currently trapped. XR&-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#See Attachment A to KDTV's reply.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѝ KDTV states that according to its calculations TCI's total  xcost of compliance is 1.5 million. KDTV further asserts that the cost per trapped subscriber is $12.23" ,>(>(II"  x(compared to $35.00) and the cost per system subscriber is $2.38 (compared to $6.84). KDTV contends  S- xthat TCI's cost of compliance is less than half that at issue in Greater Dayton in which the Commission  S- x\required TCI to spend $4.52 per subscriber to accommodate a station's channel positioning request. X-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#10 FCC Rcd. 1048 (1995).#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ю  xMKDTV argues that the cost of implementing its channel location request is insignificant in light of the revenues the 1,306,979 subscribers in the San Francisco market represent to TCI.  S- ` Px12.` ` KDTV asserts that TCI has failed to show that the cost of carrying the Station on channel  x14 throughout the San Francisco ADI represents an undue financial burden on the relevant cable systems.  xzKDTV contends that such a showing is required to justify a waiver of channel positioning obligations  S- xaccording to the Greater Dayton case.y X -ԍ#X\  P6G;P#See 10 FCC Rcd. 1048 (1995).#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ј KDTV notes that TCI has not provided any information as to the total value of the systems or the revenues generated by each system.  S$ - ` x13.` ` KDTV contends that marketwide carriage on a uniform channel is extremely important  xto the Station. KDTV explains that having a single channel position throughout a market maximizes the  x\costefficiency of station promotion and builds a "brandconsciousness" among the station's viewers.  x[KDTV argues that advertisers, too, must have "brand awareness" of the station for it to survive. KDTV  xstates that it has experienced difficulties in its sales efforts because advertisers unable to locate the Station on various cable systems do not believe that their messages are reaching the cable audience.  S - ` %x14.` ` KDTV argues that TCI should not be given 6 months to fulfill its channel position  xobligations. KDTV claims that a 6month delay will prevent KDTV from being carried onchannel during  xits World Cup Soccer Championship coverage which is expected to attract huge audiences and generate  xsignificant revenues. KDTV contends that the main reason TCI seeks delay is to allow for the installation  xof new traps which is necessary in order to relocate the programming services currently on channel 14.  xKDTV asserts, however, that to address the Station's concern TCI need only make channel 14 available  xjfor viewing of KDTV. KDTV argues that it should not be penalized for TCI's failure to comply with its  xobligations to date. Finally, KDTV argues that the Commission should investigate TCI's actions in this  xmatter and exercise its authority to impose a forfeiture on TCI. KDTV asserts that TCI has knowingly  x.remained out of compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, and by failing to seek relief earlier, has perpetuated its violation, increased its costs of compliance and harmed KDTV.  S,-( DISCUSSION T  S- ` pTPx15.` ` We conclude that TCI is required to carry KDTV on channel 14 throughout the San  xFrancisco ADI. Section 614(b)(6) of the Communications Act permits KDTV to elect its overtheair  S- x[channel number as its channel position on a cable system.* XV#-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Communications Act  614(b)(6), 47 U.S.C.  534(b)(6); See also 47 C.F.R.  76.57.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# KDTV has made a valid mustcarry election  xand has properly chosen its overtheair channel. There is no requirement in the Act or our rules that a  xLbroadcaster explain why the cable operator's onchannel preference is less suitable than the broadcaster's  xzstatutorilybased channel election. Once a station asserting its mandatory carriage rights has elected a  x[channel position, the burden is on the cable operator to either carry the station on the designated channel" ,>(>(IIt"" number or to demonstrate why it is unable to fulfill its channel positioning obligations.  S- ` x16.` ` The Commission has stated that cable operators must comply with channel positioning  S- xrequirements absent a compelling technical reason. X-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Report and Order in MM Docket No. 92259, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2988 para. 91 (1993).#Xj\  P6G;9XP# The Commission specifically held that the need to  xemploy additional traps, reconfigure the basic tier, or make technical changes are generally not sufficient  S8- xgrounds for denying the channel positioning request of a mustcarry station.8y XQ-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Id.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# The Commission, however,  xhas also recognized that there might well be certain circumstances where the compliance costs incurred  xby a cable operator would be so compelling as to warrant a waiver of the onchannel carriage requirement.  S- xIn Greater Dayton Public Television, the Commission articulated a standard that cable operators must meet in order to obtain a waiver of their channel positioning obligations:  oXxTo obtain such a waiver, a petitioner must first submit detailed evidence demonstrating  the compliance costs. The petitioner must then demonstrate how such costs would  S -substantially impact the cable system. * X-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Greater Dayton Public Television, 10 FCC Rcd. 1048 (1995).#Xj\  P6G;9XP#Ѷ   xFor the reasons discussed below, we believe that TCI has failed to meet its burden of proof for a waiver of the channel positioning requirements.  S2- ` %x17.` ` We agree with KDTV that TCI has overestimated its costs of complying with the  x=Station's request. TCI asserts that its compliance costs would be 4.3 million dollars and includes a chart  xMshowing TCI's supporting calculations. TCI claims that the high costs associated with implementing  xjKDTV's channel location request justify a waiver of the channel positioning obligations. We believe that  x=TCI erred in calculating the cost of the traps. TCI contends that in order to carry KDTV on channel 14,  xTCI would have to relocate the expanded or premium programming service currently carried on channel  xj14 to another channel number. TCI explains that this process requires the removal of existing traps from  xchannel 14 and the placement of new traps on the new channel to which the programming service is  xrelocated. Thus, it appears that the same number of traps that are currently required on channel 14 would  xbe required on the new channel. In calculating the trap cost, however, TCI multiplied the cost of the trap  xinvolved by the total number of subscribers on each of the relevant systems rather than by only the  xnumber of subscribers currently trapped out on channel 14. The total number of subscribers served by  xeach of the relevant systems is significantly higher than the number of subscribers on each system who  xare trapped on channel 14. Consequently, TCI's cost estimates are overstated. In the text of its pleading,  S- x TCI states that it would have to retrap 120,000 cable customers. X}"-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#TCI's opposition at 4.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ь In the attached chart showing its  xcalculations, TCI confirms that there are precisely 123,024 customers currently trapped out on channel 14.  xNevertheless, in determining the cost of the new traps, TCI does not multiply the cost of each trap by  x123,024, the number of customers currently trapped, but inexplicably uses the total number of subscribers  xserved by each system in its calculations. TCI's calculations of the cost of the traps do not only produce  xan exaggerated result but also contradict TCI's own analysis of the contractor's cost to replace the trap. ":,>(>(II "  xTCI correctly calculates the contractor's cost based on the number of subscribers currently trapped out on channel 14 on each system and not on the number of subscribers served by each system.  S- ` ~x18.` ` Regardless of what the actual costs of compliance with KDTV's request would be, TCI  xhas failed to demonstrate how such costs would "substantially impact" the cable system as required by  S8- x?Greater Dayton. Even if TCI's asserted costs were accurate, TCI has not presented any financial  xinformation, such as revenues generated by each system, to demonstrate that the claimed costs would have  xa substantial adverse impact on the relevant systems. TCI's assertion that the estimated costs involved  S- xhere are "prima facie evidence" that cable systems and customers will be substantially impacted by  S-implementing KDTV's request is merely a generalization and is not at all persuasive. X -ԍ#X\  P6G;P#See TCI's opposition at 6.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#і  SL - ` ox19.` ` Finally, due to the extensive nature of the changes to the systems that must be made to  S$ - xcomply with our Order, we will grant TCI's request for a sixth month time period within which to implement KDTV's channel location request.  S -1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S^- ` x20.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of  xj1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  534), that the petition filed by KDTV License Partnership, G.P., licensee  S- xof television broadcast station KDTV(TV), San Francisco, California ("KDTV") IS GRANTED .  S- xTelecommunications, Inc.'s ("TCI") IS ORDERED to commence carriage of television station KDTV(TV)  xon channel 14 of its cable systems serving the Communities six (6) months from the release date of this  S-Order.  SH- ` Bx 21.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under 0.321 of the Commission's rules.  S-x` `  hh@ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Gary M. Laden, Chief x` `  hh@Consumer Protection and Competition Division x` `  hh@Cable Services Bureau