Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. /MO/ filed this Form S-1/A on 11/01/1999
Entire Document
<PAGE>   149
Cucamonga and Victorville, California; and Lanett and Valley, Alabama.
Approximately 49,000 basic customers, approximately 1.8% of our total basic
customers, are passed by these overbuilds. Additionally, we have been notified
that franchises have been awarded, and present potential overbuild situations,
in some of our systems located in Denton, Southlake, Roanoke and Keller, Texas
and Willimantic, Connecticut. These potential overbuild areas service an
aggregate of approximately 54,000 basic customers or approximately 2.0% of our
total basic customers. In response to such overbuilds, these systems have been
designated priorities for the upgrade of cable plant and the launch of new and
enhanced services. We have upgraded each of these systems to at least 750
megahertz two-way HFC architecture, with the exceptions of our systems in
Columbus, Georgia, and Willimantic, Connecticut. Upgrades to at least 750
megahertz two-way HFC architecture with respect to these two systems are
expected to be completed by December 31, 2000 and December 31, 2001,
     - TELEPHONE COMPANIES AND UTILITIES.   The competitive environment has been
significantly affected by both technological developments and regulatory changes
enacted in The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which were designed to enhance
competition in the cable television and local telephone markets. Federal
cross-ownership restrictions historically limited entry by local telephone
companies into the cable television business. The 1996 Telecom Act modified this
cross-ownership restriction, making it possible for local exchange carriers who
have considerable resources to provide a wide variety of video services
competitive with services offered by cable systems.
     As we expand our offerings to include Internet and other telecommunications
services, we will be subject to competition from other telecommunications
providers. The telecommunications industry is highly competitive and includes
competitors with greater financial and personnel resources, who have brand name
recognition and long-standing relationships with regulatory authorities.
Moreover, mergers, joint ventures and alliances among franchise, wireless or
private cable television operators, local exchange carriers and others may
result in providers capable of offering cable television, Internet, and
telecommunications services in direct competition with us.
     Several telephone companies have obtained or are seeking cable television
franchises from local governmental authorities and are constructing cable
systems. Cross-subsidization by local exchange carriers of video and telephony
services poses a strategic advantage over cable operators seeking to compete
with local exchange carriers that provide video services. Some local exchange
carriers may choose to make broadband services available under the open video
regulatory framework of the Federal Communications Commission. In addition,
local exchange carriers provide facilities for the transmission and distribution
of voice and data services, including Internet services, in competition with our
existing or potential interactive services ventures and businesses, including
Internet service, as well as data and other non-video services. We cannot
predict the likelihood of success of the broadband services offered by our
competitors or the impact on us of such competitive ventures. The entry of
telephone companies as direct competitors in the video marketplace, however, is
likely to become more widespread and could adversely affect the profitability
and valuation of the systems.