Charter Communications Inc.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

Programming costs are one of our largest expense items. Our programming costs have historically increased in excess of customary inflationary and cost-of-living type increases. While decreases in video customers combined with a change in the mix of customers choosing lower cost packages have offset total programming cost increases, we expect contractual programming rates per service subscriber to continue to increase as a result of annual increases pursuant to our programming contracts and contract renewals with programmers. Although we pass along amounts paid for local broadcast station retransmission consent to the majority of our customers, the inability to fully pass programming cost increases on to our customers has had, and is expected in the future to have, an adverse impact on our cash flow and operating margins associated with the video product. In order to mitigate impacts to our operating margins due to increasing programming rates, we continue to review our pricing and programming packaging strategies. Further, some programmers have begun to simulcast and/or move popular programming to programmer streaming applications which has created a competitive alternative to our video subscription at lower price points that could, in turn, result in customer losses. We have sought to obtain and will continue to seek to obtain access to many of these programmer streaming applications, where applicable, as we renew agreements, so that we may include in our customers’ video subscriptions and/or sell to broadband customers for a share of revenue. Increases in the cost of sports programming and the amounts paid for local broadcast station retransmission-consent have been the largest contributors to the growth in our programming costs over the last several years. Federal law allows commercial television broadcast stations to make an election between “must-carry” rights and an alternative “retransmission-consent” regime. When a station opts for the retransmission-consent regime, we are not allowed to carry the station’s signal without that station’s permission. In retransmission-consent negotiations, broadcasters often condition consent with respect to one station on carriage of one or more other stations or programming services in which they or their affiliates have an interest. Carriage of these other services, as well as increased fees for retransmission rights, may increase our programming expenses which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. Our programming contracts are generally for a fixed period of time, with potentially significant spend subject to negotiated renewal in any particular year. We will seek to renew these agreements on terms that we believe are favorable. There can be no assurance that these agreements will be renewed on favorable or comparable terms. To the extent that we are unable to reach agreement with certain programmers on terms that we believe are reasonable, we have been, and may in the future be, forced to remove such programming channels from our line-up, which may result in a loss of customers. Any failure to carry programming that is attractive to our customers could adversely impact our customer levels, operations and financial results.

Programming costs are one of our largest expense items. Our programming costs have historically increased in excess of customary inflationary and cost-of-living type increases. While decreases in video customers combined with a change in the mix of customers choosing lower cost packages have offset total programming cost increases, we expect contractual programming rates per service subscriber to continue to increase as a result of annual increases pursuant to our programming contracts and contract renewals with programmers. Although we pass along amounts paid for local broadcast station retransmission consent to the majority of our customers, the inability to fully pass programming cost increases on to our customers has had, and is expected in the future to have, an adverse impact on our cash flow and operating margins associated with the video product. Additionally, the demands of large media companies, with additional selling power as a result of media 20 20 20 and broadcast station group consolidation, who link carriage of their most popular networks to carriage and cost increases of their less popular networks, and require us to carry their most popular networks to a large percentage of our video subscribers, have limited our flexibility in selling more tailored and cost-sensitive programming packages for consumers. In order to mitigate impacts to our operating margins due to increasing programming rates, we continue to review our pricing and programming packaging strategies. Further, some programmers have begun to simulcast and/or move popular programming to DTC apps which, in some cases, are no longer accessible by our customers through their current video subscription, despite increasing rates, driving customer dissatisfaction and in turn, customer losses. We are seeking to obtain access to these DTC apps, where applicable, as we renew agreements, so that we may include in our customers' video subscriptions. Increases in the cost of sports programming and the amounts paid for local broadcast station retransmission-consent have been the largest contributors to the growth in our programming costs over the last few years. Federal law allows commercial television broadcast stations to make an election between “must-carry” rights and an alternative “retransmission-consent” regime. When a station opts for the retransmission-consent regime, we are not allowed to carry the station’s signal without that station’s permission. In retransmission-consent negotiations, broadcasters often condition consent with respect to one station on carriage of one or more other stations or programming services in which they or their affiliates have an interest. Carriage of these other services, as well as increased fees for retransmission rights, may increase our programming expenses which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. Our programming contracts are generally for a fixed period of time, with potentially significant spend subject to negotiated renewal in any particular year. We will seek to renew these agreements on terms that we believe are favorable. There can be no assurance that these agreements will be renewed on favorable or comparable terms. To the extent that we are unable to reach agreement with certain programmers on terms that we believe are reasonable, we have been, and may in the future be, forced to remove such programming channels from our line-up, which may result in a loss of customers. Any failure to carry programming that is attractive to our customers could adversely impact our customer levels, operations and financial results.

We have a significant amount of debt and expect to (subject to applicable restrictions in our debt instruments) incur additional debt in the future as Charter maintains its stated objective of 4.0 to 4.5 times Adjusted EBITDA leverage (net debt divided by the last twelve months Adjusted EBITDA). As of December 31, 2024, our total principal amount of debt was approximately $93.8 billion and Charter's leverage ratio was 4.13 times Adjusted EBITDA. Our significant amount of debt could have adverse consequences, such as: •impact our ability to raise additional capital at reasonable rates, or at all; •make us vulnerable to interest rate increases, in part because approximately 11% of our borrowings as of December 31, 2024 were, and may continue to be, subject to variable rates of interest; •expose us to increased interest expense to the extent we refinance existing debt with higher cost debt; •require us to dedicate a significant portion of our cash flow from operating activities to make payments on our debt, reducing our funds available for capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes; •limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business, the cable and telecommunications industries, and the economy at large; •place us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors that have proportionately less debt; and •adversely affect our relationship with customers and suppliers. 24 24 24 In addition, it is possible that we may need to incur additional indebtedness in the future, including to refinance and/or in connection with the assumption of indebtedness of Liberty Broadband and/or its subsidiaries after the completion of the merger. To the extent our current debt amounts increase more than expected, our operating results are lower than expected, or credit rating agencies downgrade our debt thereby increasing our costs of borrowing and potentially limiting our access to investment grade markets, the related risks that we now face will intensify.

We have a significant amount of debt and expect to (subject to applicable restrictions in our debt instruments) incur additional debt in the future as Charter maintains its stated objective of 4.0 to 4.5 times Adjusted EBITDA leverage (net debt divided by 23 23 23 the last twelve months Adjusted EBITDA). As of December 31, 2023, our total principal amount of debt was approximately $97.6 billion and Charter's leverage ratio was 4.42 times Adjusted EBITDA. As of December 31, 2023, $70.3 billion of our debt was rated investment grade and $27.3 billion was rated high yield debt. This split rating allows us to access both the investment grade debt market and the high yield debt market. Our significant amount of debt could have adverse consequences, such as: •impact our ability to raise additional capital at reasonable rates, or at all; •make us vulnerable to interest rate increases, in part because approximately 14% of our borrowings as of December 31, 2023 were, and may continue to be, subject to variable rates of interest; •expose us to increased interest expense to the extent we refinance existing debt with higher cost debt; •require us to dedicate a significant portion of our cash flow from operating activities to make payments on our debt, reducing our funds available for capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes; •limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business, the cable and telecommunications industries, and the economy at large; •place us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors that have proportionately less debt; and •adversely affect our relationship with customers and suppliers. To the extent our current debt amounts increase more than expected, our operating results are lower than expected, or credit rating agencies downgrade our debt thereby increasing our costs of borrowing and potentially limiting our access to investment grade markets, the related risks that we now face will intensify.

There are ongoing efforts to amend or expand the federal, state and local regulation of some of the services offered over our cable systems, particularly our retail broadband Internet access service. Potential legislative and regulatory changes could adversely impact our business by increasing our costs and competition and limiting our ability to offer services in a manner that would maximize our revenue potential. These changes have in the past, and could in the future, include, for example, the reclassification of Internet services as regulated telecommunications services or other utility-style regulation of Internet services; restrictions on how we manage our Internet access services and networks; the adoption of new customer service or service quality requirements for our Internet access services; the adoption of new privacy restrictions on our collection, use and disclosure of certain customer information; new data security and cybersecurity mandates that could result in additional network and information security and cyber incident reporting requirements for our business; new restraints on our discretion over programming decisions; new restrictions on the rates we charge to consumers for one or more of the services or equipment options we offer, including our ability to offer promotions; changes to the cable industry’s compulsory copyright to retransmit broadcast signals; new requirements to assure the availability of navigation devices from third-party providers; new Universal Service Fund contribution obligations on our Internet service revenues that would add to the cost of that service; increases in government-administered broadband subsidies to rural areas that could result in subsidized overbuilding of our facilities; changes to the FCC’s administration of spectrum; and changes in the regulatory framework for VoIP telephone service, including the scope of regulatory obligations associated with our VoIP telephone service and our ability to interconnect our VoIP telephone service with incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications service. As a winning bidder in the FCC’s RDOF auction in 2020, we must comply with numerous FCC and state requirements to continue receiving such funding. To comply with these requirements, in RDOF areas, we have chosen to offer certain of our VoIP telephone services, such as our Lifeline services, subject to certain traditional federal and state common carrier regulations. Additionally, in some areas where we are building pursuant to subsidy programs, we will offer certain of our broadband Internet access services subject to required discounts and other marketing-related terms. If we fail to comply with those requirements, the governing regulatory agency could consider us in default and we could incur substantial penalties or forfeitures. If we fail to attain certain specified infrastructure build-out requirements under the RDOF program, the FCC could also withhold future support payments until those shortcomings are corrected. Any failure to comply with the rules and requirements of a subsidy grant could result in us being suspended or disbarred from future governmental programs or contracts for a significant period of time, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In 2024, one federal Court of Appeals decision found multiple constitutional violations in the FCC’s system for funding and administering its Universal Service programs. Two other Courts of Appeals had upheld the FCC’s rules. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the FCC’s appeal of the adverse decision. We cannot predict the outcome of this case or any related actions of the Congress and FCC, which could adversely affect our receipt of universal service funds, including but not limited to FCC RDOF grants to expand our network, FCC E-rate funds to serve schools and libraries and FCC Rural Health Care funds to serve eligible health care providers. Our current and past participation in state and federal programs that subsidize network construction in high-cost areas and service to schools or low-income consumers, and the provision of services to government agencies or entities, creates the risk of claims of our failure to adequately comply with the regulatory requirements of those programs or contracts. The FCC, and various state and federal agencies and attorney generals, may subject those programs, or other industry practices, to audits and investigations, which could result in enforcement actions, litigation, fines, settlements or reputational harm, and/or operational and financial conditions being placed on us, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. If any laws or regulations are enacted that would expand the regulation of our services, they could affect our operations and require significant expenditures. We cannot predict future developments in these areas, and any changes to the regulatory framework for our Internet, video, mobile or VoIP services could have a negative impact on our business and results of operations. It remains uncertain what rule changes, if any, will ultimately be adopted by Congress, the FCC, the FTC and state legislatures, and what operating or financial impact any such rules might have on us, including on the operation of our broadband networks, customer privacy and the user experience. 27 27 27

There are ongoing efforts to amend or expand the federal, state and local regulation of some of the services offered over our cable systems, particularly our retail broadband Internet access service. Potential legislative and regulatory changes could adversely impact our business by increasing our costs and competition and limiting our ability to offer services in a manner that would maximize our revenue potential. These changes have in the past, and could in the future, include, for example, the reclassification of Internet services as regulated telecommunications services or other utility-style regulation of Internet services; restrictions on how we manage our Internet access services and networks; the adoption of new customer service or service quality requirements for our Internet access services; the adoption of new privacy restrictions on our collection, use and disclosure of certain customer information; new data security and cybersecurity mandates that could result in additional network and information security and cyber incident reporting requirements for our business; new restraints on our discretion over programming decisions; new restrictions on the rates we charge to consumers for one or more of the services or equipment options we offer; changes to the cable industry’s compulsory copyright to retransmit broadcast signals; new requirements to assure the availability of navigation devices from third-party providers; new Universal Service Fund contribution obligations on our Internet service revenues that would add to the cost of that service; increases in government-administered broadband subsidies to rural areas that could result in subsidized overbuilding of our facilities; changes to the FCC’s administration of spectrum; pending court challenges to the legality of the FCC’s Universal Service programs, which, if successful, could adversely affect our receipt of universal service funds, including but not limited to FCC RDOF grants to expand our network, FCC E-rate funds to serve schools and libraries and FCC Rural Health Care funds to serve eligible health care providers; and changes in the regulatory framework for VoIP telephone service, including the scope of regulatory obligations associated with our VoIP telephone service and our ability to interconnect our VoIP telephone service with incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications service. We participate in the federal ACP that provides up to a $30 monthly subsidy enabling eligible low-income households to purchase our Internet products at a discount or, for a portion of those households, at no cost. The FCC has announced that ACP funding is expected to run out in April 2024 and has prohibited service providers from enrolling new ACP customers after February 7, 2024. If Congress does not provide additional funding, this will be disruptive to our business. We will lose customers and revenues and could face greater difficulty in providing services to low-income households in the future. As a winning bidder in the FCC’s RDOF auction in 2020, we must comply with numerous FCC and state requirements to continue receiving such funding. To comply with these requirements, in RDOF areas, we have chosen to offer certain of our VoIP telephone services, such as our Lifeline services, subject to certain traditional federal and state common carrier regulations. Additionally, in some areas where we are building pursuant to subsidy programs, we will offer certain of our broadband Internet access services subject to required discounts and other marketing-related terms. If we fail to comply with those requirements, the governing regulatory agency could consider us in default and we could incur substantial penalties or forfeitures. If we fail to attain certain specified infrastructure build-out requirements under the RDOF program, the FCC could also withhold future support payments until those shortcomings are corrected. Any failure to comply with the rules and requirements of a subsidy grant could result in us being suspended or disbarred from future governmental programs or contracts for a significant period of time, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. 26 26 26 If any laws or regulations are enacted that would expand the regulation of our services, they could affect our operations and require significant expenditures. We cannot predict future developments in these areas, and any changes to the regulatory framework for our Internet, video, mobile or VoIP services could have a negative impact on our business and results of operations. It remains uncertain what rule changes, if any, will ultimately be adopted by Congress, the FCC, the FTC and state legislatures, and what operating or financial impact any such rules might have on us, including on the operation of our broadband networks, customer privacy and the user experience. In addition, the FCC, the FTC, and various state agencies and attorney generals actively investigate industry practices and could impose substantial forfeitures for alleged regulatory violations.