Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. /MO/ filed this Form 10-Q on 08/09/2016
Entire Document

Changes to existing statutes, rules, regulations, or interpretations thereof, or adoption of new ones, could have an adverse effect on Charter’s business.

Legislators and regulators at all levels of government frequently consider changing, and sometimes do change, existing statutes, rules, regulations, or interpretations thereof, or prescribe new ones. Any future legislative, judicial, regulatory or administrative actions may increase Charter’s costs or impose additional restrictions on Charter’s businesses. For example, on February 26, 2015, the FCC adopted an order that (1) reclassified broadband Internet service as a Title II service, (2) applied certain existing Title II provisions and associated regulations, (3) forbore from applying a range of other existing Title II provisions and associated regulations, but to varying degrees indicated that this forbearance may be only temporary, and (4) issued new rules expanding disclosure requirements and prohibiting blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and unreasonable interference with the ability of end users and edge providers to reach each other. The order also subjected broadband providers’ Internet traffic exchange rates and practices to potential FCC oversight for the first time and created a mechanism for third parties to file complaints regarding these matters. The U.S. Court of Appeal upheld the order in full on June 14, 2016, although petitioners have requested a rehearing.

The FCC is considering numerous other regulatory changes. For example, the FCC is considering the appropriate regulatory framework for VoIP service, including whether that service should be regulated under Title II. In addition, the FCC recently issued a proposal to impose new regulations on our point to point transport service as well as other commercial data services (“business data services”). As a result, the FCC may price regulate business data services as common carriage services and impose additional restrictions on contracting terms. Charter cannot predict future developments in these areas, and we are already subject to Charter-specific conditions regarding certain Internet practices as a result of the FCC’s approval of the TWC Transaction and the Bright House Transaction (discussed above), but any changes to the regulatory framework for Charter’s Internet or VoIP services could have a negative impact on its business and results of operations.

The FCC is also considering the possibility of new navigation device rules. On February 18, 2016, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing rules that would require us to make disaggregated “information flows” available to set-top boxes and apps supplied by third parties in accordance with standards to be developed by a standard setting body. Various parties have advanced alternative approaches to reduce consumer dependency on traditional operator provided set-top boxes, which the FCC is considering.

In a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, issued by the FCC on April 1, 2016, the FCC proposed extending and expanding customer privacy and information security obligations to broadband Internet service providers. The proposed rules would place heightened restrictions on the use of customer information that Internet service providers obtain from the provision of broadband Internet access service (including increased notice, consumer choice, and security), and the proposed rules are inconsistent with many existing privacy and security frameworks.

It remains uncertain what rules, if any, will ultimately be adopted in these proceedings and what operating or financial impact any such rules might have on us, including on the security of the content we obtain from programmers that is delivered over any third party navigation device, customer privacy and the user experience. In addition, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has been actively investigating certain industry practices of various companies and imposing forfeitures for alleged regulatory violations.

Our cable system franchises are subject to non-renewal or termination. The failure to renew a franchise in one or more key markets could adversely affect our business.

Our cable systems generally operate pursuant to franchises, permits, and similar authorizations issued by a state or local governmental authority controlling the public rights-of-way. Many franchises establish comprehensive facilities and service requirements, as well as specific customer service standards and monetary penalties for non-compliance. In many cases, franchises are terminable if the franchisee fails to comply with significant provisions set forth in the franchise agreement governing system operations. Franchises are generally granted for fixed terms and must be periodically renewed. Franchising authorities may resist granting a renewal if either past performance or the prospective operating proposal is considered inadequate. Franchise authorities often demand concessions or other commitments as a condition to renewal. In some instances, local franchises have not been renewed at expiration, and we have operated and are operating under either temporary operating agreements or without a franchise while negotiating renewal terms with the local franchising authorities.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to comply with all significant provisions of our franchise agreements and certain of our franchisers have from time to time alleged that we have not complied with these agreements. Additionally, although historically we have renewed our franchises without incurring significant costs, we cannot assure you that we will be able to renew, or to renew as favorably, our franchises in the future. A termination of or a sustained failure to renew a franchise in one or more key markets could adversely affect our business in the affected geographic area.