UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-K

 

 

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009

 

Commission file number 001-33335

 

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

60 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10023

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(212) 364-8200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

As of the close of business on February 10, 2010, there were 352,558,973 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding. The aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity securities held by non-affiliates of the registrant (based upon the closing price of such shares on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2009) was approximately $11.2 billion.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

 

 

PART I

 

 

Overview

 

Time Warner Cable Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “TWC” or the “Company”) is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in five geographic areas – New York State (including New York City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los Angeles) and Texas. As of December 31, 2009, TWC served approximately 14.6 million residential and commercial customers who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription services – video, high-speed data and voice – totaling approximately 26.4 million primary service units (“PSUs”). TWC markets its services separately and in “bundled” packages of multiple services and features. As of December 31, 2009, 57.3% of TWC’s residential and commercial customers subscribed to two or more of its primary services, including 23.7% of such customers who subscribed to all three primary services. In addition, TWC sells advertising to a variety of national, regional and local advertising customers.

 

In February 2007, TWC became a public company subject to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Securities Exchange Act”). On March 1, 2007, TWC’s Class A common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

On March 12, 2009, TWC completed its separation from Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”), which, prior to the Separation Transactions (as defined in “—Recent Developments”), owned approximately 84% of the common stock of TWC (representing a 90.6% voting interest) and a 12.43% non-voting common stock interest in TW NY Cable Holding Inc. (“TW NY”), a subsidiary of TWC. As a result of the separation, Time Warner no longer has an ownership interest in TWC or TW NY.

 

Recent Developments

 

Separation from Time Warner, Recapitalization and TWC Reverse Stock Split

 

On March 12, 2009, TWC’s separation from Time Warner was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement between TWC and Time Warner and certain of their subsidiaries dated as of May 20, 2008 (the “Separation Agreement”). In accordance with the Separation Agreement, on February 25, 2009, a subsidiary of Time Warner transferred its 12.43% non-voting common stock interest in TW NY to TWC in exchange for 80 million newly issued shares (approximately 27 million shares after giving effect to the 1-for-3 reverse stock split discussed below) of TWC’s Class A common stock (the “TW NY Exchange”). On March 12, 2009, TWC paid a special cash dividend of $10.27 per share ($30.81 per share after giving effect to the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, aggregating $10.856 billion) to holders of record on March 11, 2009 of TWC’s outstanding Class A common stock and Class B common stock (the “Special Dividend”). Following the payment of the Special Dividend, each outstanding share of TWC Class A common stock and TWC Class B common stock was automatically converted (the “Recapitalization”) into one share of TWC common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “TWC Common Stock”). TWC’s separation from Time Warner (the “Separation”) was effected as a pro rata dividend of all shares of TWC Common Stock held by Time Warner to holders of record of Time Warner’s common stock (the “Spin-Off Dividend” or the “Distribution”). The TW NY Exchange, the Special Dividend, the Recapitalization, the Separation and the Distribution collectively are referred to as the “Separation Transactions.”

 

In connection with the Separation Transactions, on March 12, 2009, the Company implemented a reverse stock split of the TWC Common Stock (the “TWC Reverse Stock Split”) at a 1-for-3 ratio, effective immediately after the Recapitalization. The shares of TWC Common Stock distributed in the Spin-Off Dividend reflected both the Recapitalization and the TWC Reverse Stock Split.

 

2009 Bond Offerings and Termination of Lending Commitments

 

In 2009, TWC issued, in total, $6.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes and debentures under a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in three underwritten public offerings. The Company used the net proceeds from these debt issuances (1) to repay all of the borrowings outstanding under a 364-day senior unsecured term loan facility (including accrued interest and commitment fees) that TWC entered into in connection with the Separation Transactions, (2) to repay all of the borrowings outstanding under its $4.0 billion five-year term loan facility, (3) to repay borrowings outstanding under the Company’s senior unsecured five-year revolving credit facility and a portion of the borrowings outstanding under the Company’s commercial paper program, and (4) for general corporate purposes.

 

For more information about the 2009 Bond Offerings, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Overview—Recent Developments—2009 Bond Offerings and Termination of Lending Commitments” and Note 7 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

Caution Concerning Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein due

to changes in economic, business, competitive, technological, strategic and/or regulatory factors and other factors affecting the operation of TWC’s business. For more detailed information about these factors, and risk factors with respect to the Company’s operations, see Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” below and “Caution Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition” in the financial section of this report. TWC is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of such changes, new information, subsequent events or otherwise.

 

Available Information and Website

 

Although TWC and its predecessors have been in the cable business for over 40 years in various legal forms, Time Warner Cable Inc. was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on March 21, 2003. TWC’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act are available free of charge on the Company’s website at www.timewarnercable.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with the SEC.

 

Services

 

TWC offers video, high-speed data and voice services over its broadband cable systems to residential and commercial customers.

 

Residential Services

 

Video Services

 

TWC offers a broad range of residential video services, including advanced services such as On-Demand, high-definition (“HD”) and digital video recorder (“DVR”) services. As of December 31, 2009, TWC had approximately 12.7 million residential video subscribers.

 

Programming tiers.  TWC currently offers three main levels or “tiers” of video programming—Basic Service Tier (“BST”), Expanded Basic Service Tier (or Cable Programming Service Tier) (“CPST”) and Digital Basic Service Tier (“DBT”). BST generally includes broadcast television signals, satellite-delivered broadcast networks and superstations, local origination channels, a few specialty networks, such as C-SPAN and QVC, and public access, educational and government channels. CPST enables BST subscribers to add to their service national, regional and local cable news, entertainment and other networks, such as CNN, USA and ESPN. In certain areas, BST and CPST also include proprietary local programming devoted to the communities TWC serves, including 24-hour local news channels in a number of cities. DBT enables subscribers who receive digital video signals (“digital video subscribers”) to receive additional cable networks. Generally, subscribers to any tier of video programming can purchase genre-based programming tiers, such as movies, sports and Spanish language tiers, and premium services, such as HBO and Showtime.

 

TWC’s video subscribers pay a fixed monthly fee based on the video programming tier they receive. Subscribers to specialized tiers and premium services are charged an additional monthly fee, with discounts generally available for the purchase of packages of more than one such service. HD simulcasts (i.e., HD channels that are the same as their standard-definition counterparts but for picture quality) are generally provided at no additional charge, and additional charges generally apply only for HD channels that do not have standard-definition counterparts. The rates TWC can charge for its BST service and certain video equipment, including set-top boxes, in areas not subject to “effective competition” are subject to regulation under federal law. See “—Regulatory Matters” below.

 

On-Demand services.  On-Demand services are generally available to digital video subscribers. Available On-Demand services include a wide selection of featured movies and special events, for which separate per-use fees are generally charged, and free access to selected movies, programming from broadcast stations and cable networks, music videos, local programming and other content. In addition, premium service (e.g., HBO) subscribers generally have access to the premium service’s On-Demand content without additional fees.

 

DVR service.  Set-top boxes equipped with DVRs enable customers, among other things, to pause and/or rewind “live” television programs and record programs on the hard drive built into the set-top box. Subscribers pay an additional monthly fee for TWC’s DVR service. As of December 31, 2009, 50%, or approximately 4.4 million, of TWC’s digital video subscribers also subscribed to its DVR service. In 2010, TWC expects to introduce remote DVR management, which will allow customers to program their DVRs via a website or mobile handset, and a multi-room DVR service, which will allow a program recorded on a DVR to be watched on any television with a TWC-provided set-top box in a customer’s home.

 

Network DVR services.  TWC is expanding the use of Video On-Demand (“VOD”) technology to introduce additional enhancements to the video experience. For instance, as of December 31, 2009, Start Over^tm, TWC’s Emmy-award winning technology, was available to 79%, or approximately 7.0 million, of TWC’s digital video subscribers. Start Over allows digital video subscribers using a TWC-provided set-top box to restart select “in progress” programs directly from the relevant channel, without the ability to fast-forward through commercials. TWC has begun rolling out other Network DVR services such as Look Back^tm, which

extends the window for viewing a program to 72 hours after it has aired, and Quick Clips^tm, which allows customers to view short-form content tied to the broadcast station or cable network then being watched.

 

High-speed Data Services

 

TWC offered residential high-speed data services to nearly all of its homes passed as of December 31, 2009. TWC’s high-speed data services provide customers with a fast, always-on connection to the Internet. High-speed data subscribers connect to TWC’s cable systems using a cable modem, which TWC provides at no charge or which subscribers can purchase on their own. Subscribers pay a fixed monthly fee based on the level of service received. As of December 31, 2009, TWC served approximately 9.0 million residential high-speed data subscribers.

 

Road Runner High-Speed Online^tm.  TWC offers four tiers of Road Runner High-Speed Online service in all of its systems: Turbo^tm, Standard, Basic and Lite. Each tier offers a different speed at a different monthly fee. Turbo generally offers subscribers speeds of up to 20 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream. In addition, in the majority of its systems, TWC provides Turbo and Standard subscribers with Powerboost^tm at no additional charge, which allows users to initiate brief download speed bursts when TWC’s network capacity permits. During 2009, TWC deployed a new “Wideband” service in New York City, and expects to continue to selectively deploy Wideband in its service areas during 2010. Wideband generally offers subscribers speeds of up to 50 Mbps downstream and 5 Mbps upstream.

 

TWC’s Road Runner High-Speed Online service provides communication tools and personalized services, including e-mail, PC security, parental controls and online radio, without any additional charge. The Roadrunner.com portal provides access to content and media from local, national and international providers and topic-specific channels, including entertainment, dating, games, news, sports, travel, music, movie listings, shopping, ticketing and coupon sites.

 

In addition to Road Runner High-Speed Online, most of TWC’s cable systems provide their high-speed data subscribers with access to the services of certain other on-line providers, including Earthlink.

 

Road Runner Mobile^tm.  During the fourth quarter of 2009, TWC launched Road Runner Mobile, a wireless mobile broadband service, in several cities. Road Runner Mobile provides customers with wireless broadband Internet access on their computers via a TWC-provided data card. TWC offers service delivered over Clearwire Corporation’s (“Clearwire”) fourth-generation (“4G”) WiMax network and Sprint Corporation’s (“Sprint”) third-generation (“3G”) CDMA network. In 2010, TWC expects to continue to roll out Road Runner Mobile in additional cities. TWC is also an equity investor in Clearwire, see “—Operating Partnerships, Joint Ventures and Significant Investments” below.

 

Voice Services

 

TWC offered its Digital Phone service to nearly all of its homes passed as of December 31, 2009. Most Digital Phone customers receive unlimited local, in-state and U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico calling and a number of calling features, including call waiting, caller ID and Enhanced 911 (“E911”) services, for a fixed monthly fee. TWC also offers additional calling plans with a variety of options that are designed to meet customers’ particular needs, including a local-only calling plan, an unlimited in-state calling plan and an international calling plan. As of December 31, 2009, TWC served approximately 4.2 million residential Digital Phone subscribers. In 2010, TWC expects to launch a residential web portal, which will allow Digital Phone subscribers to use the Internet to customize their Digital Phone features and listen to their voicemail.

 

Commercial Services

 

TWC offers video, high-speed data, voice, networking and transport services to commercial customers marketed under the Time Warner Cable Business Class brand.

 

Video Services

 

TWC offers small- and medium-sized businesses a full range of video programming tiers and music services. Packages are designed with a wide variety of options to meet the specific demands of a business environment, with access to entertainment and news programming covering world events, local news, weather and financial markets. Commercial subscribers are charged a fixed rate based on their tier of service. As of December 31, 2009, TWC served 160,000 commercial video subscribers.

 

High-speed Data, Networking and Transport Services

 

TWC offers commercial customers a variety of high-speed data, networking and transport services.

 

High-speed data service.  TWC provides high-speed data service to small businesses with speeds of up to 15 Mbps downstream and up to 2 Mbps upstream and, in New York City, up to 50 Mbps downstream and up to 5 Mbps upstream with Wideband (“Shared Internet Access”). TWC also provides dedicated access to small- and medium-sized businesses through a fiber connection to the Internet

(“Dedicated Internet Access”). The downstream and upstream speeds for Dedicated Internet Access service are generally up to 1 Gbps. Customers may add to their Shared Internet Access or Dedicated Internet Access certain additional services, including managed storage, web hosting and personal and managed data security. In addition, TWC expects to begin offering its wireless mobile broadband service, Time Warner Cable Business Class Mobile, to commercial customers in certain of its service areas during 2010.

 

Commercial subscribers pay a fixed monthly fee based on the services received. Due to their different characteristics, commercial subscribers are charged at different rates than residential subscribers. As of December 31, 2009, TWC had 295,000 commercial high-speed data subscribers.

 

Commercial networking and transport services.  TWC offers Metro Ethernet service that provides high capacity connections to the Internet for commercial customers with geographically dispersed locations with speeds ranging from up to sub-T1 to up to 10 Gbps. TWC’s Metro Ethernet service can also extend the reach of the customer’s local area network or “LAN” within and between metropolitan areas.

 

In addition, TWC offers point-to-point transport services to wireless telephone providers, Internet services providers and competitive carriers on a wholesale basis.

 

Voice Services

 

TWC offers its commercial voice service, Business Class Phone, to a broad range of businesses. Business Class Phone is a multi-line voice service developed for small businesses, which provides unlimited local, intrastate and long distance calling, along with other key business features, such as call restrictions, non-verified account codes and three-way call transfer. During 2009, TWC also began offering Business Class PRI, which is designed for medium-sized businesses and supports up to twenty-three simultaneous voice calls on each two-way trunk line.

 

Due to their different characteristics, commercial Business Class Phone subscribers are charged at different rates than residential Digital Phone subscribers. At December 31, 2009, TWC had 67,000 commercial voice subscribers.

 

Advertising

 

TWC earns revenues by selling advertising to national, regional and local customers. As part of the agreements under which it acquires video programming, TWC typically receives an allocation of scheduled advertising time in such programming, generally two or three minutes per hour, into which its systems can insert commercials, subject, in some instances, to certain subject matter limitations. The clustering of TWC’s systems expands the share of viewers that TWC reaches within a local designated market area, which helps its local advertising sales business to compete more effectively with broadcast and other media. In addition, TWC has a strong presence in the country’s two largest advertising market areas, New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA.

 

In many locations, TWC has formed advertising “interconnects” or entered into representation agreements with contiguous cable system operators to deliver locally inserted commercials across wider geographic areas, replicating the reach of the local broadcast stations as much as possible. TWC also sells the video advertising inventory of certain regional sports programming networks. In addition, TWC’s local cable news channels, VOD offerings and online services, such as Roadrunner.com, provide it with opportunities to generate advertising revenue.

 

Advanced Advertising

 

TWC is exploring various means to use its VOD and other advanced capabilities to deliver to television advertisers the same kind of advanced advertising offerings and measurement data currently available to Internet advertisers, as well as to attract advertising that would otherwise be placed with other media, such as print and direct mail. For example, in several geographic areas, TWC provides overlays that enable video subscribers with a TWC-provided digital set-top box to request additional information regarding certain advertised products using the remote control, to “telescope” from a traditional advertisement to a long-form VOD segment regarding the advertised product, to vote on a relevant topic or to receive more specific additional information. In addition, in 2009, TWC launched certain digital offerings, such as Promotions on Demand, which enable video subscribers to use their remote control to request that coupons, samples and/or brochures be sent to their home. These tools are used to provide advertisers with important feedback about the impact of their advertising efforts and the value of enhancing the video experience with interactive features. TWC also currently provides anonymized VOD and enhanced TV viewing data to its programming partners.

 

In 2008, TWC and certain other cable operators formed Canoe Ventures LLC (“Canoe”), a joint venture focused on developing a common technology platform among cable operators for the delivery of advanced advertising products and services to be offered to programmers and advertisers. One component of Canoe’s strategy is to enable TWC and the industry as a whole to expand their measurement capabilities in order to provide anonymized viewing data to marketers and strategic partners to serve as the foundation of its advanced advertising platform.

Marketing and Sales

 

TWC’s marketing focuses both on acquiring new customers as well as retaining and selling additional services to existing customers. In both cases, offering attractive bundled services, particularly a triple play offering of video, high-speed data and voice services, is a key element of TWC’s strategy. TWC offers bundled services to both its residential and commercial customers and, increasingly, these customers subscribe to two or three of TWC’s primary services. TWC believes that bundled offerings increase its customers’ satisfaction with TWC, increase customer retention and encourage subscription to additional features. Using a proprietary system, TWC is able to segment existing and potential customers, and target its marketing efforts appropriately.

 

The following table presents selected statistical data regarding TWC’s customer relationships and double play and triple play subscribers (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

TWC is in the fourth year of using the brand, The Power of You^tm, to advertise a variety of features, such as Start Over, that demonstrate that TWC customers are in control of their experience. This message is delivered via broadcast, TWC’s website, its cable systems, print, radio and other outlets including outdoor advertising, direct mail, e-mail, on-line advertising, local grassroots efforts and non-traditional media.

 

TWC also employs a wide range of direct channels to reach its customers, including outbound telemarketing, door-to-door sales, online at www.timewarnercable.com and through third-party web partners, and in TWC and third-party retail stores. In addition, TWC uses customer care channels and inbound call centers to sell additional services to existing customers, as well as new services to potential customers.

 

Customer Care

 

During 2009, TWC made significant progress in improving its customer care processes and infrastructure. The Company’s customer care strategy is designed to give customers more control over their experience in ways that are simple and easy and, to that end, is focused on the reliability and technical quality of its plant, resolving customers’ issues on the first call, and providing customers several means of communicating with the Company, including online approaches, such as eCare and MyService at www.timewarnercable.com.

 

Technology

 

Cable Systems

 

TWC’s cable systems employ a hybrid fiber coaxial cable, or “HFC,” network. TWC transmits signals on these systems via laser-fed fiber optic cable from origination points known as “headends” and “hubs” to a group of distribution “nodes,” and uses coaxial cable to deliver these signals from the individual nodes to the homes they serve. TWC pioneered this architecture and received an Emmy award in 1994 for its HFC development efforts. HFC architecture allows the delivery of two-way video and broadband transmissions, which is essential to providing advanced video, high-speed data, voice, networking and transport services. As of December 31, 2009, virtually all of the homes passed by TWC’s cable systems were served by two-way capable plant that had been upgraded to provide at least 750MHz of capacity.

 

TWC believes that its network architecture is sufficiently flexible and extensible to support its current requirements. However, in order for TWC to continue to innovate and deliver new services to its customers, as well as meet its competitive needs, TWC anticipates that it will need to use the bandwidth available to its systems more efficiently over the next few years. To accommodate increasing demands for greater capacity in its network, TWC has deployed a technology known as switched digital video (“SDV”). SDV technology expands network capacity by transmitting only those digital and HD video channels that are being watched within a given grouping of

households at any given moment. Since it is generally the case that not all such channels are being watched at all times within a given group of households, SDV technology frees up capacity that can then be made available for other uses, including additional HD channels, expanded VOD offerings, faster high-speed data connections, reliable Digital Phone quality and interactive services. TWC received an Emmy award in 2008 for its efforts in SDV technology development. As of December 31, 2009, approximately 5.9 million (or 46%) of video subscribers received some portion of their video service via SDV technology, and TWC expects to complete its roll-out of SDV technology during 2010.

 

Set-top Boxes

 

Each of TWC’s cable systems uses one of two “conditional access” systems to secure signals from unauthorized receipt, the intellectual property rights to which are controlled by set-top box manufacturers. In part as a result of the proprietary nature of these conditional access systems, TWC currently purchases set-top boxes from a limited number of suppliers. For more information, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties—TWC may not be able to obtain necessary hardware, software and operational support.”

 

Generally, TWC’s video subscribers must have either a TWC-provided digital set-top box or a “digital cable-ready” television or similar device equipped with a conditional-access security card (“CableCARD^tm”) in order to receive digital video programming. However, a unidirectional device, such as a “digital cable-ready” television, cannot request certain digital signals that are necessary to receive TWC’s two-way video services, such as VOD, channels delivered via SDV technology and TWC’s interactive program guide. In order to receive TWC’s two-way video services, customers generally must have a TWC-provided digital set-top box.

 

CableLabs, a nonprofit research and development consortium founded by members of the cable industry, has put forward a set of hardware and software specifications known as “tru2way,” which represent an effort to create a common platform for set-top box applications regardless of the box’s operating system. Tru2way-enabled televisions and other devices with tru2way technology are able to receive TWC’s two-way video services. During 2009, TWC deployed approximately 2.3 million tru2way-enabled set-top boxes, and it expects to continue to deploy additional boxes during 2010.

 

Suppliers

 

TWC contracts with certain third parties for goods and services related to the delivery of its video, high-speed data and voice services.

 

Video programming.  TWC carries local broadcast stations pursuant to either the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) “must carry” rules or a written retransmission consent agreement with the relevant station owner. The current three-year carriage cycle began on January 1, 2009, and TWC has multi-year retransmission consent agreements in place with most of the retransmission consent stations that it carries. For more information, see “—Regulatory Matters” below. Cable networks, including premium services, are carried pursuant to affiliation agreements. TWC generally pays a monthly per subscriber fee for cable services and sometimes pays a fee for broadcast stations that elect retransmission consent. Such fees typically cover the network or station’s linear feed as well as its free On-Demand content. Payments to the providers of some premium services may be based on a percentage of TWC’s gross receipts from subscriptions to the services. Generally, TWC obtains rights to carry VOD movies and events and to sell and/or rent online video programming via the Road Runner Video Store through iN Demand L.L.C., a company in which TWC holds a minority interest. In some instances, TWC contracts directly with film studios for VOD carriage rights for movies. Such VOD content is generally provided to TWC under revenue-sharing arrangements.

 

Set-top boxes, program guides and network equipment.  TWC purchases set-top boxes and CableCARDs from a limited number of suppliers, including Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco Systems”), Motorola Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and leases these devices to subscribers at monthly rates. See “—Technology—Cable Systems—Set-top Boxes” above and “—Regulatory Matters” below. TWC purchases routers, switches and other network equipment from a variety of providers, the most significant of which is Cisco Systems. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties—TWC may not be able to obtain necessary hardware, software and operational support.” In addition to its Open Cable Digital Navigator (“ODN”) and Mystro Digital Navigator (“MDN”) program guides, TWC provides its subscribers with set-top box program guides from Cisco Systems and Rovi Corporation (formerly Macrovision Corporation).

 

High-speed data and voice connectivity.  TWC delivers high-speed data and voice services through TWC’s HFC network and regional and national fiber networks that are either owned or leased from third parties. These networks provide connectivity to the Internet. TWC pays fees for leased circuits based on the amount of capacity available to it and pays for Internet connectivity based on the amount of IP-based traffic received from and sent over the other carrier’s network. TWC also has entered into a number of “settlement-free peering” arrangements with third-party networks that allow TWC to exchange traffic with those networks without a fee.

 

Digital Phone.  Under multi-year agreements between TWC and Sprint, Sprint assists TWC in providing Digital Phone service by routing voice traffic to and from destinations outside of TWC’s network via the public switched telephone network, delivering E911, operator and directory assistance services and assisting in order processing, local number portability and long-distance traffic carriage. In

2009, TWC launched an initiative to replace Sprint as the provider of these services, a process that will take a number of years. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties—TWC may not be able to obtain necessary hardware, software and operational support.”

 

Competition

 

TWC faces intense competition for customers from a variety of alternative communications, information and entertainment delivery sources. TWC competes with incumbent local telephone companies, including AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) and Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”), across each of its primary services. Some of these telephone companies offer a broad range of services with features and functions comparable to those provided by TWC and in bundles similar to those offered by TWC, sometimes with the addition of wireless services. Each of TWC’s services also faces competition from other companies that provide services on a stand-alone basis. TWC’s video service faces competition from direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) services, and increasingly from companies that deliver content to consumers over the Internet. TWC’s high-speed data service faces competition from wireless data providers, and competition in voice service is increasing as more homes in the United States are replacing their wireline telephone service with wireless service. Technological advances and product innovations have increased and will likely continue to increase the number of alternatives available to TWC’s customers, further intensifying competition. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Competition.”

 

Principal Competitors

 

Incumbent local telephone companies.  TWC’s video, high-speed data and Digital Phone services face competition from the video, digital subscriber line (“DSL”), wireless broadband and wireline and wireless phone offerings of AT&T and Verizon. In a significant number of TWC’s operating areas, AT&T and Verizon have upgraded their networks to carry two-way video, high-speed data and IP-based telephony services, each of which is similar to the corresponding service offered by TWC. Moreover, AT&T and Verizon aggressively market and sell bundles of video, high-speed data and voice services plus, in some cases, wireless services, and they market cross-platform features with their wireless services, such as remote DVR control from a wireless handset. TWC also faces competition in some areas from the DSL, wireless broadband and phone offerings of smaller incumbent local telephone companies, such as Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier Communications”) and Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (“Cincinnati Bell”).

 

Direct broadcast satellite.  TWC’s video service faces competition from DBS services, such as DISH Network Corporation (“Dish Network”) and DirecTV Group Inc. (“DirecTV”). Dish Network and DirecTV offer satellite-delivered pre-packaged programming services that can be received by relatively small and inexpensive receiving dishes. These providers offer aggressive promotional pricing, exclusive programming (e.g., NFL Sunday Ticket^tm) and video services that are comparable in many respects to TWC’s digital video service, including its DVR service and some of its interactive programming features.

 

In some areas, incumbent local telephone companies and DBS operators have entered into co-marketing arrangements that allow the telephone companies to offer synthetic bundles (i.e., video service provided principally by the DBS operator, and DSL, wireline phone service and, in some cases, wireless service provided by the telephone company). From a consumer standpoint, the synthetic bundles appear similar to TWC’s bundles.

 

Cable overbuilders.  TWC operates its cable systems under non-exclusive franchises granted by state or local authorities. The existence of more than one cable system, including municipality-owned systems, operating in the same territory is referred to as an “overbuild.” In some of TWC’s operating areas, other operators have overbuilt TWC’s systems and offer video, high-speed data and voice services in competition with TWC.

 

Other Competition and Competitive Factors

 

Aside from competing with the video, high-speed data and voice services offered by incumbent local telephone companies, DBS providers and cable overbuilders, each of TWC’s services also faces competition from other companies that provide services on a stand-alone basis.

 

Video competition.  TWC’s video service faces competition from a number of different sources, including companies that deliver movies, television shows and other video programming over broadband Internet connections, such as Hulu.com, Apple Inc.’s iTunes, Netflix Inc.’s “Watch Instantly” and YouTube. Increasingly, content owners are utilizing Internet-based delivery of content directly to consumers, some without charging a fee for access to the content. Furthermore, due to consumer electronics innovations, consumers are able to watch such Internet-delivered content on television sets. TWC also competes with online order services with mail delivery and video stores.

 

“Online” competition.  TWC’s high-speed data service faces competition from a variety of companies that offer other forms of online services, including low cost dial-up services over telephone lines and wireless broadband services, such as those offered by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Clearwire, Internet service via power lines, satellite and various other wireless services (e.g., Wi-Fi).

Digital Phone competition.  TWC’s Digital Phone service competes with wireline, wireless and “over-the-top” phone providers. An increasing number of homes in the U.S. are replacing their traditional wireline telephone service with wireless phone service, a trend commonly referred to as “wireless substitution.” Wireless phone providers are encouraging this trend with aggressive marketing and the launch of wireless products targeted for home use. TWC also competes with “over-the-top” providers, such as Vonage, Skype, magicJack and Google Voice, and companies that sell phone cards at a cost per minute for both national and international service. The increase in wireless substitution and in the number of different technologies capable of carrying voice services has intensified the competitive environment in which TWC operates its Digital Phone service.

 

Additional competition.  In addition to multi-channel video providers, cable systems compete with all other sources of news, information and entertainment, including over-the-air television broadcast reception, live events, movie theaters and the Internet. In general, TWC also faces competition from other media for advertising dollars. To the extent that TWC’s services converge with theirs, TWC competes with the manufacturers of consumer electronics products. For instance, TWC’s DVR service competes with similar devices manufactured by consumer electronics companies.

 

Commercial competition.  TWC competes with incumbent local telephone companies, especially AT&T and Verizon, across all of its commercial services: video, high-speed data, voice, networking and transport. In addition, on a stand-alone basis, TWC’s commercial video service faces competition from DBS providers that compete with TWC primarily in the hospitality and restaurant industry, and its commercial high-speed data, voice, networking and transport services face competition from national and smaller regional competitive local exchange carriers or, “CLECs,” and from a variety of smaller incumbent local telephone companies, such as Frontier Communications and Cincinnati Bell.

 

Franchise process.  Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, franchising authorities are prohibited from unreasonably refusing to award additional franchises. In December 2006, the FCC adopted an order intended to make it easier for competitors to obtain franchises, by defining when the actions of county- and municipal-level franchising authorities will be deemed to be unreasonable as part of the franchising process. Furthermore, legislation supported by regional telephone companies has been enacted in a number of states to allow these companies to enter the video distribution business under state-wide franchises and without obtaining local franchise approval. Legislation of this kind has been enacted in California, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, which include some of the Company’s largest operating areas. See “—Regulatory Matters—Video Services—Franchising” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Government Regulation.”

 

Employees

 

As of December 31, 2009, TWC had approximately 47,000 employees, including approximately 1,400 part-time employees. 4.6% of TWC’s employees are represented by labor unions. TWC considers its relations with its employees to be good.

 

Regulatory Matters

 

TWC’s business is subject, in part, to regulation by the FCC and by most local and state governments where TWC has cable systems. In addition, TWC’s business is operated subject to compliance with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the FCC in July 2006 in connection with the regulatory clearance of the transactions related to TWC’s 2006 acquisition of cable systems from Adelphia Communications Corporation and Comcast Corporation (the “Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order”). Various legislative and regulatory proposals under consideration from time to time by the United States Congress (“Congress”) and various federal agencies have in the past materially affected TWC and may do so in the future.

 

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”), and the regulations and policies of the FCC affect significant aspects of TWC’s cable system operations, including video subscriber rates; carriage of broadcast television signals and cable programming, as well as the way TWC sells its program packages to subscribers; the use of cable systems by franchising authorities and other third parties; cable system ownership; offering of voice, high-speed data and transport services; and its use of utility poles and conduits.

 

The following is a summary of current significant federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting the growth and operation of TWC’s business as well as a summary of the terms of the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order. The summary of the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order herein does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the provisions of the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order.

 

Video Services

 

Subscriber rates.  The Communications Act and the FCC’s rules regulate rates for basic cable service and equipment in communities that are not subject to “effective competition,” as defined by federal law. Where there has been no finding by the FCC of effective competition, federal law authorizes franchising authorities to regulate the monthly rates charged by the operator for the minimum level of video programming service, referred to as basic service tier or BST, which generally includes broadcast television

signals, satellite-delivered broadcast networks and superstations, local origination channels, a few specialty networks and public access, educational and government channels. This regulation also applies to the installation, sale and lease of equipment used by subscribers to receive basic service, such as set-top boxes and remote control units. In the majority of its localities, TWC is no longer subject to rate regulation, either because the local franchising authority has not become certified by the FCC to regulate these rates or because the FCC has found that there is effective competition.

 

Carriage of broadcast television stations and other programming regulation.  The Communications Act and the FCC’s regulations contain broadcast signal carriage requirements that allow local commercial television broadcast stations to elect once every three years to require a cable system to carry their stations, subject to some exceptions, commonly called “must carry,” or to negotiate with cable systems the terms on which the cable systems may carry their stations, commonly called “retransmission consent.” The current carriage cycle began on January 1, 2009.

 

The Communications Act and the FCC’s regulations require a cable operator to devote up to one-third of its activated channel capacity for the mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations that elect “must carry.” The Communications Act and the FCC’s regulations give local non-commercial television stations mandatory carriage rights, but non-commercial stations do not have the option to negotiate retransmission consent for the carriage of their signals by cable systems. Additionally, cable systems must obtain retransmission consent for all “distant” commercial television stations (i.e., those television stations outside the designated market area to which a community is assigned) except for commercial satellite-delivered independent “superstations” and some low-power television stations.

 

In 2005, the FCC reaffirmed its earlier decision rejecting multi-casting (i.e., carriage of more than one program stream per broadcaster) requirements with respect to carriage of broadcast signals pursuant to must-carry rules. Certain parties filed petitions for reconsideration. To date, no action has been taken on these reconsideration petitions, and TWC is unable to predict what requirements, if any, the FCC might adopt in connection with multi-casting.

 

In September 2007, the FCC adopted rules that require cable operators that offer at least some analog service (i.e., that are not operating “all-digital” systems) to provide subscribers down-converted analog versions of must-carry broadcast stations’ digital signals. In addition, must-carry stations broadcasting in HD format must be carried in HD on cable systems with greater than 552 MHz capacity; standard-definition signals may be carried only in analog format. These rules became effective after the broadcast television transition from analog to digital service for full power television stations on June 12, 2009, and are currently scheduled to terminate after three years, subject to FCC review.

 

The Communications Act also permits franchising authorities to negotiate with cable operators for channels for public, educational and governmental access programming. It also requires a cable system with 36 or more activated channels to designate a significant portion of its channel capacity for commercial leased access by third parties, which limits the amount of capacity TWC has available for other programming. The FCC regulates various aspects of such third-party commercial use of channel capacity on TWC’s cable systems, including the rates and some terms and conditions of the commercial use. These rules are the subject of an ongoing FCC proceeding, and recent revisions to such rules are stayed pursuant to an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The FCC also has an open proceeding to examine its substantive and procedural rules for program carriage. TWC is unable to predict whether any such proceedings will lead to any material changes in existing regulations.

 

In addition, the Communications Act and FCC regulations also require TWC to give various kinds of advance notice of certain changes in TWC’s programming line-up. Under certain circumstances, TWC must give as much as 30 or 45 days’ advance notice to subscribers, programmers and franchising authorities of such changes. DBS operators and other non-cable programming distributors are not subject to analogous duties.

 

Ownership limitations.  There are various rules prohibiting joint ownership of cable systems and other kinds of communications facilities, including local telephone companies and multichannel multipoint distribution service facilities. The Communications Act also requires the FCC to adopt “reasonable limits” on the number of subscribers a cable operator may reach through systems in which it holds an ownership interest. In December 2007, the FCC adopted an order establishing a 30% limit on the percentage of nationwide multichannel video subscribers that any single cable provider can serve. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and vacated the FCC order in August 2009. TWC is unable to predict when the FCC will take action to set new limits, if any. The Communications Act also requires the FCC to adopt “reasonable limits” on the number of channels that cable operators may fill with programming services in which they hold an ownership interest. The matter remains pending before the FCC. It is uncertain when the FCC will rule on this issue or how any regulation it adopts might affect TWC.

 

Pole attachment regulation.  The Communications Act requires that investor-owned utilities provide cable systems and telecommunications carriers with non-discriminatory access to any pole, conduit or right-of-way controlled by those utilities. The Communications Act permits the FCC to regulate the rates, terms and conditions imposed by these utilities for cable systems’ use of utility poles and conduit space. States are permitted to preempt FCC jurisdiction over pole attachments through certifying that they regulate the terms of attachments themselves. Many states in which TWC operates have done so. The FCC or a certifying state could increase pole attachment rates paid by cable operators. In addition, the FCC has adopted a higher pole attachment rate applicable to pole

attachments made by any company that provides telecommunications services. The applicability of and method for calculating pole attachment rates for cable operators that provide Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services remains unclear. In November 2007, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to establish a new unified pole attachment rate that would apply to attachments made by cable operators and telecommunications companies that are used to provide high-speed Internet services. It is unclear whether this ruling would apply to VoIP services or have any effect on the pole attachment rates for companies providing telecommunications services. The proposed rate could be higher than the current rate paid by cable service providers. In addition, in August 2009, a coalition of electric utility companies petitioned the FCC to declare that the pole attachment rate for attachments used by cable companies to provide VoIP services should be assessed at the higher rate paid by telecommunications providers. TWC has opposed this petition. If either of these petitions is adopted, TWC’s current payments for pole attachments could materially increase. Finally, some of the poles TWC uses are exempt from federal regulation because they are owned by utility cooperatives and municipal entities. These entities may not renew TWC’s existing agreements when they expire, and they may require TWC to pay substantially increased fees. A number of these entities are currently seeking to impose substantial rate increases. Any increase in TWC’s pole attachment rates or inability to secure continued pole attachment agreements with these cooperatives or municipal utilities on commercially reasonable terms could cause TWC’s business, financial results or financial condition to suffer. For further discussion of pole attachment rates, see the discussion in “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties—TWC may encounter substantially increased pole attachment costs.”

 

Set-top box regulation.  Certain regulatory requirements are also applicable to set-top boxes and other equipment that can be used to receive digital video services. Currently, many cable subscribers rent from their cable operator a set-top box that performs both signal-reception functions and conditional-access security functions. The lease rates cable operators charge for this equipment are subject to rate regulation to the same extent as basic cable service. Under these regulations, cable operators are allowed to set equipment rates for set-top boxes, CableCARDs and remote controls on the basis of actual capital costs, plus an annual after-tax rate of return of 11.25%, on the capital cost (net of depreciation). In 1996, Congress enacted a statute requiring the FCC to pass rules fostering the availability of set-top boxes. An implementing regulation, which became effective on July 1, 2007, requires cable operators to cease placing into service new set-top boxes that have integrated security functions. DBS operators are not subject to this requirement.

 

In December 2002, cable operators and consumer-electronics companies entered into a standard-setting agreement relating to reception equipment that uses a conditional-access security card—a CableCARD—provided by the cable operator to receive one-way cable services. To implement the agreement, the FCC adopted regulations that (i) establish a voluntary labeling system for such one-way devices; (ii) require most cable systems to support these devices; and (iii) adopt various content-encoding rules, including a ban on the use of “selectable output controls” to direct program content only through authorized outputs. In June 2007, the FCC initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may lead to regulations covering equipment sold at retail that is designed to receive two-way products and services, which, if adopted, could increase TWC’s cost in supporting such equipment. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking remains pending. In June 2008, cable operators and consumer-electronics companies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that establishes a national platform for retail devices to receive interactive (or two-way) cable services.

 

In November 2009, in its National Broadband Plan proceeding, the FCC identified a set-top box “innovation gap” that it stated could hinder the convergence of video, TV and IP-based technology. In December 2009, the FCC sought specific comment on how it can encourage innovation in the market for navigation devices. If the FCC requires multi-channel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) and consumer electronics manufacturers to develop a universal “plug-and-play” device for all MVPDs, it may impede innovation in this area.

 

Multiple dwelling units and inside wiring.  In November 2007, the FCC adopted an order declaring null and void all exclusive access arrangements between cable operators and multiple dwelling units and other centrally managed real estate developments (“MDUs”). In connection with the order, the FCC also issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding whether to expand the ban on exclusivity to other types of MVPDs in addition to cable operators, including DBS providers, and whether to expand the scope of the rules to prohibit exclusive marketing and bulk billing agreements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the order in May 2009. The FCC also has adopted rules facilitating competitors’ access to the cable wiring inside such MDUs. This order, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in October 2008, could have an adverse impact on TWC’s business because it allows competitors to use wiring inside MDUs that TWC has already deployed.

 

Copyright regulation.  TWC’s cable systems provide subscribers with, among other things, content from local and distant television broadcast stations. TWC generally does not obtain a license to use the copyrighted performances contained in these stations’ programming directly from program owners. Instead, in exchange for filing reports with the U.S. Copyright Office and contributing a percentage of revenue to a federal copyright royalty pool, cable operators obtain rights to retransmit copyrighted material contained in broadcast signals pursuant to a compulsory license. The elimination or substantial modification of this compulsory copyright license has been the subject of ongoing legislative and administrative review, and, if eliminated or modified, could adversely affect TWC’s ability to obtain suitable programming and could substantially increase TWC’s programming costs. Additionally, the U.S. Copyright Office has released a ruling on issues relating to the calculation of compulsory license fees that could increase the amount cable operators are required to pay into the copyright royalty pool. Legislation has been introduced to address this issue and it is pending as of February 18,

2010. Further, the U.S. Copyright Office has not yet made any determinations as to how the compulsory license will apply to digital broadcast signals and services.

 

In addition, when TWC obtains programming from third parties, TWC generally obtains licenses that include any necessary authorizations to transmit the music included in it. When TWC creates its own programming and provides various other programming or related content, including local origination programming and advertising that TWC inserts into cable-programming networks, TWC is required to obtain any necessary music performance licenses directly from the rights holders. These rights are generally controlled by three music performance rights organizations, each with rights to the music of various composers. TWC generally has obtained the necessary licenses, either through negotiated licenses or through procedures established by consent decrees entered into by some of the music performance rights organizations.

 

Program access and Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order.  In the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order, the FCC imposed conditions on TWC, which will expire in July 2012, related to regional sports networks (“RSNs”), as defined in the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order, and the resolution of disputes pursuant to the FCC’s leased access regulations. In particular, the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order provides that (i) neither TWC nor its affiliates may offer an affiliated RSN on an exclusive basis to any MVPD; (ii) TWC may not unduly or improperly influence the decision of any affiliated RSN to sell programming to an unaffiliated MVPD or the prices, terms and conditions of sale of programming by an affiliated RSN to an unaffiliated MVPD; (iii) if an MVPD and an affiliated RSN cannot reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of carriage, the MVPD may elect commercial arbitration to resolve the dispute; (iv) if an unaffiliated RSN is denied carriage by TWC, it may elect commercial arbitration to resolve the dispute in accordance with the FCC’s program carriage rules; and (v) with respect to leased access, if an unaffiliated programmer is unable to reach an agreement with TWC, that programmer may elect commercial arbitration to resolve the dispute, with the arbitrator being required to resolve the dispute using the FCC’s existing rate formula relating to pricing terms. The FCC has suspended this “baseball style” arbitration procedure as it relates to TWC’s carriage of unaffiliated RSNs, although it allowed the arbitration of a claim brought by the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network because the claim was brought prior to the suspension. In that case, in October 2008, the FCC’s Media Bureau upheld the arbitrator’s ruling in favor of the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, and TWC has petitioned for review by the full FCC. In addition, Herring Broadcasting, Inc., which does business as WealthTV, filed a program carriage complaint against TWC and other cable operators alleging discrimination against WealthTV’s programming in favor of a similarly situated video programming vendors in violation of the FCC’s rules. In October 2009, after convening an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim, an FCC Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision in favor of TWC and the other cable operators in the proceeding, which WealthTV appealed to the full FCC. These proceedings remain pending.

 

Tax.  Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, DBS providers benefit from federal preemption of locally imposed or administered taxes and fees on video services, including those borne by the Company and its customers. Several states have enacted or are considering parity tax measures to equalize the tax and fee burden imposed on DBS and cable video services. DBS providers have been challenging such parity efforts in the courts, Congress and, increasingly, state legislatures in an effort to maintain their competitive pricing advantage and preclude states from implementing such parity tax measures. Thus far, the states have prevailed in the federal and state courts with respect to legal challenges to such tax parity statutes. However, there can be no assurance as to the outcome with respect to cases still pending and ongoing legislative efforts.

 

Other federal regulatory requirements.  The Communications Act also includes provisions regulating customer service, subscriber privacy, marketing practices, equal employment opportunity, technical standards and equipment compatibility, antenna structure notification, marking, lighting, emergency alert system requirements and the collection from cable operators of annual regulatory fees, which are calculated based on the number of subscribers served and the types of FCC licenses held. The FCC also actively regulates other aspects of TWC’s video services, including the mandatory blackout of syndicated, network and sports programming; customer service standards; political advertising; indecent or obscene programming; Emergency Alert System requirements for analog and digital services; closed captioning requirements for the hearing impaired; commercial restrictions on children’s programming; recordkeeping and public file access requirements; and technical rules relating to operation of the cable network.

 

Franchising.  Cable operators generally operate their systems under non-exclusive franchises. Franchises are awarded, and cable operators are regulated, by state franchising authorities, local franchising authorities, or both.

 

Franchise agreements typically require payment of franchise fees and contain regulatory provisions addressing, among other things, upgrades, service quality, cable service to schools and other public institutions, insurance and indemnity bonds. The terms and conditions of cable franchises vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Communications Act provides protections against many unreasonable terms. In particular, the Communications Act imposes a ceiling on franchise fees of five percent of revenues derived from cable service. TWC generally passes the franchise fee on to its subscribers, listing it as a separate item on the bill.

 

Franchise agreements usually have a term of ten to 15 years from the date of grant, although some renewals may be for shorter terms. Franchises usually are terminable only if the cable operator fails to comply with material provisions. TWC has not had a franchise terminated due to breach. After a franchise agreement expires, a local franchising authority may seek to impose new and more onerous requirements, including requirements to upgrade facilities, to increase channel capacity and to provide various new services. Federal law,

however, provides significant substantive and procedural protections for cable operators seeking renewal of their franchises. In addition, although TWC occasionally reaches the expiration date of a franchise agreement without having a written renewal or extension, TWC generally has the right to continue to operate, either by agreement with the local franchising authority or by law, while continuing to negotiate a renewal. In the past, substantially all of the material franchises relating to TWC’s systems have been renewed by the relevant local franchising authority, though sometimes only after significant time and effort.

 

In June 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld regulations adopted by the FCC in December 2006 intended to limit the ability of local franchising authorities to delay or refuse the grant of competitive franchises (by, for example, imposing deadlines on franchise negotiations). The FCC has applied most of these rules to incumbent cable operators which, although immediately effective, in some cases may not alter existing franchises prior to renewal.

 

At the state level, several states, including California, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, have enacted statutes intended to streamline entry by additional video competitors, some of which provide more favorable treatment to new entrants than to existing providers. Similar bills are pending or may be enacted in additional states. Despite TWC’s efforts and the protections of federal law, it is possible that some of TWC’s franchises may not be renewed, and TWC may be required to make significant additional investments in its cable systems in response to requirements imposed in the course of the franchise renewal process. See “—Competition—Other Competition and Competitive Factors—Franchise process.”

 

High-speed Internet Access Services

 

TWC provides high-speed data services over its existing cable facilities. In 2002, the FCC released an order in which it determined that cable-provided high-speed Internet access service is an interstate “information service” rather than a “cable service” or a “telecommunications service,” as those terms are defined in the Communications Act. That determination was sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court. The “information service” classification means that the service is not subject to regulation as a cable service or as a telecommunications service under federal, state, or local law. Nonetheless, TWC’s high-speed Internet access service is subject to a number of regulatory requirements, including the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”), which requires that high-speed data providers implement certain network capabilities to assist law enforcement agencies in conducting surveillance of criminal suspects.

 

“Net neutrality” legislative and regulatory proposals.  Several disparate groups have adopted the term “net neutrality” in connection with their efforts to persuade Congress and regulators to adopt rules that could limit the ability of broadband providers to effectively manage or operate their broadband networks. In previous Congressional sessions, legislation has been introduced proposing “net neutrality” requirements, which would have limited to a greater or lesser extent the ability of high-speed Internet access service providers to adopt pricing models and network management policies. Similar legislation was introduced in the most recent session, as well as legislation to prevent the FCC from adopting any net neutrality rules.

 

In September 2005, the FCC issued its Net Neutrality Policy Statement, which at the time, the agency characterized as a non-binding policy statement. The principles contained in the Net Neutrality Policy Statement set forth the FCC’s view that consumers are entitled to access and use lawful Internet content and applications of their choice, to connect to lawful devices of their choosing that do not harm the broadband provider’s network and to competition among network, application, service and content providers. The Net Neutrality Policy Statement notes that these principles are subject to “reasonable network management.” Subsequently, the FCC made these principles binding as to certain telecommunications companies for specified periods of time pursuant to “voluntary commitments” in orders adopted in connection with mergers undertaken by those companies.

 

Several parties have sought to persuade the FCC to adopt net neutrality-type regulations in a number of proceedings before the agency; however, none of these proceedings has resulted in the adoption of formal regulations. Despite this, in November 2007, a formal complaint was filed against Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) alleging that its use of “reset packets” to manage peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic constituted an unreasonable network management practice. In August 2008, the FCC released a decision finding in favor of the complainant relying in part on the FCC’s Net Neutrality Policy Statement. That decision is under appeal. In October 2009, the FCC initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to adopt so-called “net neutrality” rules that it describes as intended to preserve the openness of the Internet. The proposed rules would apply to all providers of broadband Internet access services, whether wireline or wireless, but would not apply to providers of applications, content or other services. The FCC indicated that its comment process seeks comment both on its rationales for the draft proposals as well as their form and scope. Initial comments were filed on January 14, 2010, and reply comments are due by March 5, 2010. For further discussion of “net neutrality” and the impact such proposals could have on TWC if adopted, see the discussion in “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Government Regulation—‘Net neutrality’ legislation or regulation could limit TWC’s ability to operate its high-speed data business profitably and to manage its broadband facilities efficiently to respond to growing bandwidth usage by TWC’s high-speed data customers.”

 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), enacted on February 17, 2009, provides approximately $7 billion to stimulate investment in broadband. As of February 18, 2010, only a small portion of the available funds has been awarded. All broadband funding awards must be made by September 30, 2010. TWC did not apply

for any of these funds, but many other organizations have done so. TWC could be placed at a disadvantage if these funds are not made available in a competitively neutral way, or are used to compete with TWC’s broadband services in a manner that gives the recipients a competitive advantage.

 

National Broadband Plan.  As part of the ARRA, Congress directed the FCC to develop a National Broadband Plan to deliver to Congress by February 17, 2010. The primary focuses of the plan are universal broadband deployment, increased broadband utilization and adoption, and the integration of broadband into several key “national purposes,” such as healthcare, education, energy and E-government. The FCC initiated a proceeding to develop the National Broadband Plan in April 2009 and has issued more than 28 different requests for comment on related issues. The cable industry, generally, has encouraged the FCC to focus on ways to increase broadband adoption and digital literacy. On January 7, 2010, FCC Chairman Genachowski notified Congress of the need for a one month extension until March 17, 2010 to deliver the plan to Congress. The final plan is expected to result in a number of new rulemaking proceedings. TWC is unable to predict the impact of such proceedings on TWC’s business.

 

Voice Services

 

TWC currently offers residential and commercial voice services using VoIP technology. Traditional providers of circuit-switched telephone services generally are subject to significant regulation. It is unclear whether and to what extent regulators will subject interconnected VoIP services such as TWC’s residential and commercial voice services to the same regulations that apply to the traditional voice services provided by incumbent telephone companies. In February 2004, the FCC opened a broad-based rulemaking proceeding to consider these and other issues. That rulemaking remains pending. The FCC has, however, extended a number of traditional telephone carrier regulations to interconnected VoIP providers, including requiring interconnected VoIP providers: to provide E911 capabilities as a standard feature to their subscribers; to comply with the requirements of CALEA to assist law enforcement investigations in providing, after a lawful request, call content and call identification information; to contribute to the federal universal service fund; to pay regulatory fees; to comply with subscriber privacy rules; to provide access to their services to persons with disabilities; and to comply with service discontinuance requirements and local number portability (“LNP”) rules when subscribers change telephone providers.

 

Certain other issues related to interconnected VoIP services remain unclear. In particular, in November 2004, the FCC determined that regardless of their regulatory classification, certain interconnected VoIP services qualify as interstate services with respect to economic regulation. The FCC preempted state public utility commission regulations that address such issues as entry certification and tariffing requirements, as applied to interconnected VoIP services. On March 21, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the FCC’s November 2004 order with respect to these VoIP services. Despite this ruling, certain states have sought to impose state regulation on interconnected VoIP providers such as TWC. For instance, in 2008, the Wisconsin public utility commission ruled that TWC’s Digital Phone service is subject to traditional, circuit-switched telephone regulation. In addition, other state commissions have opened investigations into whether and to what extent interconnected VoIP services should be regulated in their respective states.

 

The FCC and various states are also considering how interconnected VoIP services should interconnect with incumbent phone company networks. Because the FCC has yet to classify interconnected VoIP service, the precise scope of interconnection rules as applied to interconnected VoIP service is not clear. As a result, some small incumbent telephone companies may resist interconnecting directly with TWC. Finally, the FCC is considering comprehensive intercarrier compensation reform including the appropriate compensation regime applicable to interconnected VoIP traffic over the public switched telephone network. It is unclear whether and when the FCC or Congress will adopt further rules relating to VoIP interconnection and how such rules would affect TWC’s interconnected VoIP service.

 

Commercial Networking and Transport Services

 

Entities providing point-to-point and other transport services generally have been subjected to various kinds of regulation. In particular, in connection with intrastate transport services, state regulatory authorities commonly require such providers to obtain and maintain certificates of public convenience and necessity and to file tariffs setting forth the service’s rates, terms, and conditions and to have just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates, terms and conditions. Interstate transport services are governed by similar federal regulations. In addition, providers generally may not transfer assets or ownership without receiving approval from or providing notice to state and federal authorities. Finally, providers of point-to-point and similar transport services are generally required to contribute to various state and federal regulatory funds, including state universal funds and the Federal Universal Service Fund.

 

Operating Partnerships, Joint Ventures and Significant Investments

 

Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.

 

TWE is a Delaware limited partnership that was formed in 1992 that, as of the Separation Transactions, is wholly owned by TWC. At the time of the restructuring of TWE (the “TWE Restructuring”), which was completed on March 31, 2003, subsidiaries of Time

Warner owned general and limited partnership interests in TWE consisting of 72.36% of the pro-rata priority capital and residual equity capital and 100% of the junior priority capital, and a trust established for the benefit of Comcast (“Comcast Trust I”) owned limited partnership interests in TWE consisting of 27.64% of the pro-rata priority capital and residual equity capital. Prior to the TWE Restructuring, TWE’s business consisted of interests in cable systems, cable networks and filmed entertainment.

 

Through a series of steps executed in connection with the TWE Restructuring, TWE transferred its non-cable businesses, including its filmed entertainment and cable network businesses, along with associated liabilities, to Warner Communications Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner, and the ownership structure of TWE was reorganized so that (i) TWC owned 94.3% of the residual equity interests in TWE, (ii) Comcast Trust I owned 4.7% of the residual equity interests in TWE and (iii) American Television and Communications Corporation (“ATC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner, owned 1.0% of the residual equity interests in TWE and $2.4 billion in mandatorily redeemable preferred equity issued by TWE. In addition, following the TWE Restructuring, Time Warner indirectly held shares of TWC Class A common stock and Class B common stock representing, in the aggregate, 89.3% of the voting power and 82.1% of TWC’s outstanding equity.

 

On July 28, 2006, the partnership interests and preferred equity originally held by ATC were contributed to Time Warner NY Cable LLC (“TW NY Cable”), a wholly owned subsidiary of TWC, in exchange for a 12.43% non-voting common stock economic interest in TW NY, and Comcast Trust I’s ownership interest in TWE was redeemed. As a result, Time Warner had no direct interest in TWE and Comcast no longer had any interest in TWE. As a result of the Separation Transactions, Time Warner no longer has an ownership interest in TWC or TW NY. As of December 31, 2009, TWE had $2.6 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt securities with maturities ranging from 2012 to 2033 and fixed interest rates ranging from 8.375% to 10.15%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Financial Condition and Liquidity—Outstanding Debt and Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Equity and Available Financial Capacity.”

 

TWE-A/N Partnership Agreement

 

The following description summarizes certain provisions of the partnership agreement relating to the Time Warner Entertainment–Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“TWE-A/N”). Such description does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the provisions of the TWE-A/N partnership agreement.

 

Partners of TWE-A/N.  The general partnership interests in TWE-A/N are held by TW NY Cable and TWE (the “TW Partners”) and Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“A/N”), a partnership owned by wholly owned subsidiaries of Advance Publications Inc. and Newhouse Broadcasting Corporation. The TW Partners also hold preferred partnership interests. TWE acquired its interest in TWE-A/N as the result of a merger of its wholly owned subsidiary, TWE-A/N Holdco, L.P. (which previously held the interest), into TWE on December 31, 2008.

 

2002 restructuring of TWE-A/N.  The TWE-A/N cable television joint venture was formed by TWE and A/N in December 1995. A restructuring of the partnership was completed during 2002. As a result of this restructuring, cable systems and their related assets and liabilities serving approximately 2.1 million subscribers as of December 31, 2002 (which amount is not included in TWE-A/N’s 4.7 million consolidated subscribers, as of December 31, 2009) located primarily in Florida (the “A/N Systems”), were transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary of TWE-A/N (the “A/N Subsidiary”). As part of the restructuring, effective August 1, 2002, A/N’s interest in TWE-A/N was converted into an interest that tracks the economic performance of the A/N Systems, while the TW Partners retain the economic interests and associated liabilities in the remaining TWE-A/N cable systems. Also, in connection with the restructuring, TWC effectively acquired A/N’s interest in Road Runner. TWE-A/N’s financial results, other than the results of the A/N Systems, are consolidated with TWC’s.

 

Management and operations of TWE-A/N.  Subject to certain limited exceptions, TWE is the managing partner, with exclusive management rights of TWE-A/N, other than with respect to the A/N Systems. Also, subject to certain limited exceptions, A/N has authority for the supervision of the day-to-day operations of the A/N Subsidiary and the A/N Systems. In connection with the 2002 restructuring, TWE entered into a services agreement with A/N and the A/N Subsidiary under which TWE agreed to exercise various management functions, including oversight of programming and various engineering-related matters. TWE and A/N also agreed to periodically discuss cooperation with respect to new product development. TWC receives a fee for providing the A/N Subsidiary with high-speed data services and the management functions noted above.

 

Restrictions on transfer—TW Partners.  Each TW Partner is generally permitted to directly or indirectly dispose of its entire partnership interest at any time to a wholly owned affiliate of TWE (in the case of transfers by TWE) or to TWE, TWC or a wholly owned affiliate of TWE or TWC (in the case of transfers by TW NY Cable). In addition, the TW Partners are also permitted to transfer their partnership interests through a pledge to secure a loan, or a liquidation of TWE in which TWC, or its affiliates, receives a majority of the interests of TWE-A/N held by the TW Partners. TWE is allowed to issue additional partnership interests in TWE so long as TWC continues to own, directly or indirectly, either 35% or 43.75% of the residual equity capital of TWE, depending on when the issuance occurs.

Restrictions on transfer—A/N Partner.  A/N is generally permitted to directly or indirectly transfer its entire partnership interest at any time to certain members of the Newhouse family or specified affiliates of A/N. A/N is also permitted to dispose of its partnership interest through a pledge to secure a loan and in connection with specified restructurings of A/N.

 

Restructuring rights of the partners.  TWE and A/N each has the right to cause TWE-A/N to be restructured at any time. Upon a restructuring, TWE-A/N is required to distribute the A/N Subsidiary with all of the A/N Systems to A/N in complete redemption of A/N’s interests in TWE-A/N, and A/N is required to assume all liabilities of the A/N Subsidiary and the A/N Systems. To date, neither TWE nor A/N has delivered notice of the intent to cause a restructuring of TWE-A/N.

 

TWE’s regular right of first offer.  Subject to exceptions, A/N and its affiliates are obligated to grant TWE a right of first offer prior to any sale of assets of the A/N Systems to a third party.

 

TWE’s special right of first offer.  Within a specified time period following the first, seventh, thirteenth and nineteenth anniversaries of the deaths of two specified members of the Newhouse family (those deaths have not yet occurred), A/N has the right to deliver notice to TWE stating that it wishes to transfer some or all of the assets of the A/N Systems, thereby granting TWE the right of first offer to purchase the specified assets. Following delivery of this notice, an appraiser will determine the value of the assets proposed to be transferred. Once the value of the assets has been determined, A/N has the right to terminate its offer to sell the specified assets. If A/N does not terminate its offer, TWE will have the right to purchase the specified assets at a price equal to the value of the specified assets determined by the appraiser. If TWE does not exercise its right to purchase the specified assets, A/N has the right to sell the specified assets to an unrelated third party within 180 days on substantially the same terms as were available to TWE.

 

Clearwire Investment

 

TWC holds an indirect equity interest in Clearwire, which was formed by the combination of the respective wireless broadband businesses of Sprint and Clearwire Communications LLC, an operating subsidiary of Clearwire (the “Clearwire Investment”). The Clearwire Invesment is focused on deploying the first nationwide 4G wireless network to provide mobile broadband services to wholesale and retail customers. Clearwire’s Class A Common Stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. In November 2008, TWC, Intel Corporation (“Intel”), Google Inc., Comcast and Bright House Networks, LLC (collectively, the “Clearwire Investors”) invested $3.2 billion (the “Initial Clearwire Investment”) in Clearwire Communications LLC. TWC initially invested $550 million for membership interests in Clearwire Communications, LLC, which represented an ownership interest in Clearwire, after post-closing adjustments, of approximately 4.47%. In connection with the transaction, TWC entered into wholesale agreements with Clearwire and Sprint that allow TWC to offer wireless services utilizing Clearwire’s 4G WiMax network and Sprint’s 3G CDMA network. See “—Services—Residential Services—High-speed Data Services” above.

 

In November 2009, TWC, Sprint, Intel, Comcast, Bright House Networks, LLC and Eagle River Holdings, LLC (the “Participating Equityholders”) collectively agreed to invest up to an additional $1.564 billion in Clearwire Communications LLC, of which TWC agreed to fund approximately $103 million (the “Follow-On Clearwire Investment”). Through December 31, 2009, $1.497 billion of the investment had been funded, of which TWC had invested $99 million. Following the completion of the transaction in the first quarter of 2010, TWC expects its ownership in Clearwire will be approximately 4.93%.

 

In exchange for TWC investing in the Follow-On Clearwire Investment in amounts in excess of its pro rata ownership in Clearwire prior to such investment, Clearwire agreed to pay TWC a cash fee of $2 million. Certain other Participating Equityholders received similar fees in connection with the Follow-On Clearwire Investment.

 

In connection with the Initial Clearwire Investment, affiliates of TWC and the other Clearwire Investors entered into an operating agreement, an equity holders’ agreement and a registration rights agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with Clearwire, and, other than Intel, a strategic investor agreement governing certain rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the governance of Clearwire, including director nominations, transfer and purchase restrictions on Clearwire’s common stock, rights of first refusal, pre-emptive rights and tag-along rights. Under the Registration Rights Agreement, TWC is entitled to two demand registration rights (other than demands to file a registration statement on Form S-3) as long as the securities to be registered have an aggregate price to the public of not less than $50 million. On December 21, 2009, Clearwire filed a shelf registration statement providing for the registration and sale of all Clearwire securities held by TWC as of such date.

 

Wireless Spectrum Joint Venture

 

TWC is a participant in a joint venture with certain other cable companies (“SpectrumCo”) that holds advanced wireless spectrum (“AWS”) licenses. In January 2009, SpectrumCo redeemed the 10.9% interest held by an affiliate of Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox”) and Cox received AWS licenses, principally covering the areas in which Cox provides cable services, and approximately $70 million in cash (of which TWC’s share was $22 million). Following the closing of the Cox transaction, SpectrumCo’s AWS licenses cover 20 MHz over 80% of the continental United States and Hawaii.

 

 

Risks Related to Competition

 

TWC faces a wide range of competition, which could negatively affect its business and financial results.

 

TWC’s industry is, and will continue to be, highly competitive. Some of TWC’s principal competitors, incumbent local telephone companies, in particular, offer services that provide features and functions comparable to the video, high-speed data and/or voice services that TWC offers, and they offer them in bundles similar to TWC’s, sometimes with the addition of wireless services. In a significant number of TWC’s operating areas, AT&T and Verizon have upgraded their networks to carry two-way video, high-speed data with substantial bandwidth and IP-based telephony services, which they market and sell in bundles, in some cases, along with their wireless service.

 

In addition, each of TWC’s services faces competition from other companies that provide services on a stand-alone basis. TWC’s video service faces competition from DBS providers that try to distinguish their services from TWC’s by offering aggressive promotional pricing, exclusive programming, and/or assertions of superior service or offerings. Increasingly, TWC’s video service also faces competition from companies that deliver content to consumers over the Internet, some without charging a fee for access to the content. This trend could negatively impact customer demand for TWC’s video service, especially premium and On-Demand services, and could encourage content owners to seek higher license fees from TWC in order to subsidize their free distribution of content. TWC also faces competition in high-speed data service from wireless data providers, and in voice service from wireline, wireless and “over-the-top” phone providers, especially as an increasing number of homes in the United States replace their wireline telephone service with wireless service.

 

Any inability to compete effectively or an increase in competition with respect to video, high-speed data or voice services could have an adverse effect on TWC’s financial results and return on capital expenditures due to possible increases in the cost of gaining and retaining subscribers and lower per subscriber revenue, could slow or cause a decline in TWC’s growth rates, and reduce TWC’s revenues. As TWC expands and introduces new and enhanced services, TWC may be subject to competition from other providers of those services. TWC cannot predict the extent to which this competition will affect its future business and financial results or return on capital expenditures.

 

Future advances in technology, as well as changes in the marketplace, in the economy and in the regulatory and legislative environments, may result in changes to the competitive landscape. For additional information, see “—Risks Related to Government Regulation,” and “Business—Competition” and “—Regulatory Matters.”

 

TWC faces risks relating to competition for the leisure and entertainment time of audiences, which has intensified in part due to advances in technology.

 

In addition to the various competitive factors discussed above, TWC’s business is subject to risks relating to increasing competition for the leisure and entertainment time of consumers. TWC’s business competes with all other sources of entertainment and information delivery. Technological advancements, such as VOD, new video formats, and Internet streaming and downloading, many of which have been beneficial to TWC’s business, have nonetheless increased the number of entertainment and information delivery choices available to consumers and intensified the challenges posed by audience fragmentation. Increasingly, content owners are delivering their content directly to consumers over the Internet, often without charging any fee for access to the content. Furthermore, due to consumer electronics innovations, consumers are more readily able to watch such Internet-delivered content on television sets and mobile devices. The increasing number of choices available to audiences could negatively impact not only consumer demand for TWC’s products and services, but also advertisers’ willingness to purchase advertising from TWC. If TWC does not respond appropriately to the increasing leisure and entertainment choices available to consumers, TWC’s competitive position could deteriorate, and TWC’s financial results could suffer.

 

TWC’s competitive position and business and financial results could suffer if it does not develop compelling wireless offerings.

 

TWC believes that broadband cable networks currently provide the most efficient means to deliver its services, but consumers are increasingly interested in accessing information, entertainment and communication services outside the home as well. TWC launched Road Runner Mobile, a wireless mobile broadband service, in several cities during the fourth quarter of 2009, and it expects to continue to roll out the service in additional cities during 2010. TWC utilizes Clearwire’s mobile broadband network to provide the service pursuant to a wholesale agreement with Clearwire. Clearwire’s network is currently available in a limited number of cities and there can be no assurance that Clearwire will successfully finance, construct and deploy a nationwide mobile broadband network.

 

TWC does not offer wireless voice products although some of its wireline competitors and their affiliates do offer such products. TWC may determine that it needs to offer a wireless voice product to remain competitive. If TWC incurs significant costs in developing or marketing wireless mobile voice and/or broadband offerings, and the resulting offerings are not competitive with the offerings of TWC’s competitors or appealing to TWC’s customers, TWC’s business and financial results could suffer. Furthermore, if TWC’s

competitors expand their service bundles to include compelling wireless features before TWC has rolled out equivalent or more compelling offerings, TWC may not be in a position to provide a competitive service offering and its growth, business and financial results may be adversely affected.

 

Risks Related to TWC’s Operations

 

A prolonged economic downturn, especially a continued downturn in the housing market, may negatively impact TWC’s ability to attract new subscribers and generate increased subscription revenues.

 

The United States economy has experienced a period of slowdown, and the future economic environment may continue to be less favorable than that of prior years. A continuation or further weakening of these economic conditions could lead to further reductions in consumer demand for the Company’s services, especially premium services and DVRs, and a continued increase in the number of homes that replace their wireline telephone service with wireless service, which would negatively impact TWC’s ability to attract customers, increase rates and maintain or increase subscription revenues. In addition, providing video services is an established and highly penetrated business. TWC’s ability to achieve incremental growth in video subscribers is dependent to a large extent on growth in occupied housing in TWC’s service areas, which is influenced by both national and local economic conditions. If growth in the number of occupied homes in TWC’s operating areas continues to decline, it may negatively impact TWC’s ability to gain new video subscribers.

 

TWC’s business is characterized by rapid technological change, and if TWC does not respond appropriately to technological changes, its competitive position may be harmed.

 

TWC operates in a highly competitive, consumer-driven and rapidly changing environment and its success is, to a large extent, dependent on its ability to acquire, develop, adopt and exploit new and existing technologies to distinguish its services from those of its competitors. If TWC chooses technologies or equipment that are less effective, cost-efficient or attractive to its customers than those chosen by its competitors, or if TWC offers services that fail to appeal to consumers, are not available at competitive prices or that do not function as expected, TWC’s competitive position could deteriorate, and TWC’s business and financial results could suffer.

 

The ability of TWC’s competitors to acquire or develop and introduce new technologies, products and services more quickly than TWC may adversely affect TWC’s competitive position. Furthermore, advances in technology, decreases in the cost of existing technologies or changes in competitors’ product and service offerings also may require TWC in the future to make additional research and development expenditures or to offer at no additional charge or at a lower price certain products and services TWC currently offers to customers separately or at a premium. In addition, the uncertainty of the costs for obtaining intellectual property rights from third parties could impact TWC’s ability to respond to technological advances in a timely manner.

 

Significant unanticipated increases in the use of bandwidth-intensive Internet-based services could increase TWC’s costs.

 

The rising popularity of bandwidth-intensive Internet-based services poses special risks for TWC’s high-speed data service. Examples of such services include peer-to-peer file sharing services, gaming services and the delivery of video via streaming technology and by download. If heavy usage of bandwidth-intensive services grows beyond TWC’s current expectations, TWC may need to invest more capital than currently anticipated to expand the bandwidth capacity of its systems or TWC’s customers may have a suboptimal experience when using TWC’s high-speed data service. In order to continue to provide quality service at attractive prices, TWC needs the continued flexibility to develop and refine business models that respond to changing consumer uses and demands and to manage bandwidth usage efficiently. TWC’s ability to do these things could be restricted by legislative or regulatory efforts to impose so-called “net neutrality” requirements on cable operators. See “—Risks Related to Government Regulation—‘Net neutrality’ legislation or regulation could limit TWC’s ability to operate its high-speed data business profitably and to manage its broadband facilities efficiently to respond to growing bandwidth usage by TWC’s high-speed data customers.”

 

TWC may encounter unforeseen difficulties as it increases the scale of its service offerings to commercial customers.

 

TWC has sold video, high-speed data, network and transport services to businesses for some time and, in 2007, introduced an IP-based telephony service, Business Class Phone, geared to small- and medium-sized businesses. In order to provide its commercial customers with reliable services, TWC may need to increase expenditures, including spending on technology, equipment and personnel. If the services are not sufficiently reliable or TWC otherwise fails to meet commercial customers’ expectations, the growth of its commercial services business may be limited. In addition, TWC faces competition from the existing local telephone companies as well as from a variety of other national and regional business services competitors. If TWC is unable to successfully attract and retain commercial customers, its growth, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

TWC relies on network and information systems and other technology, and a disruption or failure of such networks, systems or technology as a result of computer viruses, misappropriation of data or other malfeasance, as well as outages, natural disasters, accidental releases of information or similar events, may disrupt TWC’s business.

 

Because network and information systems and other technologies are critical to TWC’s operating activities, network or information system shutdowns caused by events such as computer hacking, dissemination of computer viruses, worms and other destructive or disruptive software, denial of service attacks and other malicious activity, as well as power outages, natural disasters, terrorist attacks and similar events, pose increasing risks. Such an event could have an adverse impact on TWC and its customers, including degradation of service, service disruption, excessive call volume to call centers and damage to TWC’s plant, equipment and data. Such an event also could result in large expenditures necessary to repair or replace such networks or information systems or to protect them from similar events in the future. Significant incidents could result in a disruption of TWC’s operations, customer dissatisfaction, or a loss of customers or revenues.

 

Furthermore, TWC’s operating activities could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification and accidental release or loss of information maintained in TWC’s information technology systems and networks, including customer, personnel and vendor data. TWC could be exposed to significant costs if such risks were to materialize, and such events could damage the reputation and credibility of TWC and its business and have a negative impact on its revenues. TWC also could be required to expend significant capital and other resources to remedy any such security breach. As a result of the increasing awareness concerning the importance of safeguarding personal information, the potential misuse of such information and legislation that has been adopted or is being considered regarding the protection, privacy and security of personal information, information-related risks are increasing, particularly for businesses like TWC’s that handle a large amount of personal customer data.

 

TWC’s business may be adversely affected if TWC cannot continue to license or enforce the intellectual property rights on which its business depends.

 

TWC relies on patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws and licenses and other agreements with its employees, customers, suppliers, and other parties, to establish and maintain its intellectual property rights in technology and the products and services used in TWC’s operations. However, any of TWC’s intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated, or such intellectual property rights may not be sufficient to permit TWC to take advantage of current industry trends or otherwise to provide competitive advantages, which could result in costly redesign efforts, discontinuance of certain product or service offerings or other competitive harm. Claims of intellectual property infringement could require TWC to enter into royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms, incur substantial monetary liability or be enjoined preliminarily or permanently from further use of the intellectual property in question, which could require TWC to change its business practices or offerings and limit its ability to compete effectively. Even claims without merit can be time-consuming and costly to defend and may divert management’s attention and resources away from TWC’s businesses. Also, because of the rapid pace of technological change, TWC relies on technologies developed or licensed by third parties, and TWC may not be able to obtain or continue to obtain licenses from these third parties on reasonable terms, if at all.

 

TWC is party to agreements with Time Warner and an affiliate of Time Warner governing the use of “Time Warner Cable” and “Road Runner” that may be terminated if TWC fails to perform its obligations under those agreements or if TWC undergoes a specified change of control.

 

TWC licenses “Time Warner Cable” and “Road Runner” from Time Warner and an affiliate of Time Warner, respectively. These license agreements may be terminated by Time Warner or its affiliate if TWC commits a significant breach of its obligations under such agreements, undergoes a specified change of control, or materially fails to maintain the quality standards established for the use of these trademarks and the products and services related to these trademarks.

 

If Time Warner or its affiliate terminates these brand name license agreements, TWC would lose the goodwill associated with its brand names and be forced to develop new brand names, which would likely require substantial expenditures, and TWC’s business, financial results or financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

 

The accounting treatment of goodwill and other identified intangibles could result in future asset impairments, which would be recorded as operating losses.

 

Authoritative guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) requires that goodwill, including the goodwill included in the carrying value of investments accounted for using the equity method of accounting, and other intangible assets deemed to have indefinite useful lives, such as cable franchise rights, cease to be amortized. The guidance requires that goodwill and certain intangible assets be tested annually for impairment or earlier upon the occurrence of certain events or substantive changes in circumstances. If TWC finds that the carrying value of goodwill or a certain intangible asset exceeds its estimated fair value, it will reduce the carrying value of the goodwill or intangible asset to the estimated fair value, and TWC will recognize an impairment. Any such impairment is required to be recorded as a noncash operating loss.

TWC’s 2009 annual impairment analysis, which was performed as of December 31, 2009, did not result in any goodwill or cable franchise rights impairment charges. However, it is possible that impairment charges may be recorded in the future to reflect potential declines in fair value. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Asset Impairments—Goodwill and Indefinite-lived Intangible Assets” and “—Long-lived Assets.”

 

TWC has incurred substantial debt, which may limit its flexibility and prevent it from taking advantage of business opportunities.

 

As of December 31, 2009, TWC had $21.583 billion of net debt and mandatorily redeemable preferred equity. This level of indebtedness may limit TWC’s ability to respond to market conditions, provide for capital investment needs or take advantage of business opportunities. Also, as a result of TWC’s increased borrowings in 2008 and 2009 to fund the Special Dividend, its interest expense will be higher than it was prior to the borrowings, which will affect TWC’s profitability and cash flows.

 

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties

 

Increases in programming and retransmission costs or the inability to obtain popular programming could adversely affect TWC’s operations, business or financial results.

 

Video programming costs represent a major component of TWC’s expenses and are expected to continue to increase primarily due to the increasing cost of obtaining desirable programming, particularly broadcast and sports programming. TWC’s video programming costs as a percentage of video revenues have increased over recent years and will continue to increase over the next coming years as cable programming and broadcast station retransmission consent cost increases outpace growth in video revenues. Furthermore, providers of desirable content may be unwilling to enter into distribution arrangements with TWC on acceptable terms and owners of non-broadcast video programming content may enter into exclusive distribution arrangements with TWC’s competitors. A failure to carry programming that is attractive to TWC’s subscribers could adversely impact subscription and advertising revenues.

 

TWC may not be able to obtain necessary hardware, software and operational support.

 

TWC depends on third party suppliers and licensors to supply some of the hardware, software and operational support necessary to provide some of TWC’s services. Some of TWC’s hardware, software and operational support vendors represent TWC’s sole source of supply or have, either through contract or as a result of intellectual property rights, a position of some exclusivity. If demand exceeds these vendors’ capacity or if these vendors experience operating or financial difficulties, especially in light of current economic and market conditions, TWC’s ability to provide some services might be materially adversely affected. These events could materially and adversely affect TWC’s ability to retain and attract subscribers, and have a material negative impact on TWC’s operations, business, financial results and financial condition.

 

TWC has multi-year agreements with Sprint under which it provides certain functions and services necessary to TWC in providing Digital Phone service to customers by routing voice traffic to and from destinations outside of TWC’s network via the public switched telephone network, delivering E911, operator and directory assistance service and assisting in order processing, local number portability and long-distance traffic carriage. TWC recently launched an initiative to replace Sprint as the provider of these services. However, the process will take a number of years, during which time TWC’s reliance on Sprint for these services may render TWC vulnerable to service disruptions and other operational difficulties, which could have an adverse effect on TWC’s business and financial results.

 

TWC may encounter substantially increased pole attachment costs.

 

Under federal law, TWC has the right to attach cables carrying video and other services to telephone and similar poles of investor-owned utilities at regulated rates. However, because these cables may carry services other than video services, such as high-speed data services or new forms of voice services, some utility pole owners have sought to impose additional fees for pole attachment. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the efforts of some utility pole owners to make cable attachments carrying Internet traffic ineligible for regulatory protection. Pole owners have, however, made arguments in other areas of pole regulation that, if successful, could significantly increase TWC’s costs. In November 2007, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to establish a single pole attachment rate for all utility pole owners carrying broadband Internet access services that would be higher than the rate charged for video and cable modem service. In addition, in August 2009, a coalition of electric utility companies petitioned the FCC to declare that the pole attachment rate for cable companies’ digital telephone service should be assessed at the higher rate paid by telecommunications providers rather than the rate paid by cable providers.

 

Some of the poles TWC uses are exempt from federal regulation because they are owned by utility cooperatives and municipal entities. These entities may not renew TWC’s existing agreements when they expire, and they may require TWC to pay substantially increased fees. A number of these entities are currently seeking to impose substantial rate increases. Any increase in TWC’s pole attachment rates or inability to secure continued pole attachment agreements with these cooperatives or municipal utilities on commercially reasonable terms could cause TWC’s business, financial results or financial condition to suffer.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

 

TWC’s business is subject to extensive governmental regulation, which could adversely affect its business.

 

TWC’s video and voice services are subject to extensive regulation at the federal, state, and local levels. In addition, the federal government has extended some regulation to high-speed data services and is considering additional regulations. TWC is also subject to regulation of its video services relating to rates, equipment, technologies, programming, levels and types of services, taxes and other charges. Modification to existing regulations or the imposition of new regulations could have an adverse impact on TWC’s services. TWC expects that legislative enactments, court actions, and regulatory proceedings will continue to clarify and, in some cases, change the rights of cable companies and other entities providing video, high-speed data and voice services under the Communications Act and other laws, possibly in ways that TWC has not foreseen. The results of these legislative, judicial, and administrative actions may materially affect TWC’s business operations.

 

Changes in broadcast carriage regulations could impose significant additional costs on TWC.

 

Although TWC would likely choose to carry the majority of primary feeds of full power stations voluntarily, so-called “must carry” rules require TWC to carry some local broadcast television signals on some of its cable systems that it might not otherwise carry. If the FCC seeks to revise or expand the “must carry” rules, such as to require carriage of multicast streams, TWC would be forced to carry video programming that it would not otherwise carry and potentially to drop other, more popular programming in order to free capacity for the required programming, which could make TWC less competitive. Moreover, if the FCC adopts rules that are not competitively neutral, cable operators could be placed at a disadvantage versus other multi-channel video providers.

 

Under the program carriage rules, TWC could be compelled to carry programming services that it would not otherwise carry.

 

The Communications Act and the FCC’s “program carriage” rules restrict cable operators and MVPDs from unreasonably restraining the ability of an unaffiliated programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating against the programming vendor on the basis of its non-affiliation in the selection, terms or conditions for carriage. The FCC’s Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order imposes certain additional obligations related to these rules. Under a successful program carriage complaint, TWC might be compelled to carry programming services it would not otherwise carry and/or to do so on economic and other terms that it would not accept absent such compulsion. TWC is currently the defendant in two program carriage complaints. See “Business—Regulatory Matters—Video Services—Program access and Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order.” Compelled government carriage could reduce TWC’s ability to carry other, more desirable programming and non-video services, decrease its ability to manage its bandwidth efficiently and increase TWC’s costs, adversely affecting TWC’s competitive position.

 

“Net neutrality” legislation or regulation could limit TWC’s ability to operate its high-speed data business profitably and to manage its broadband facilities efficiently to respond to growing bandwidth usage by TWC’s high-speed data customers.

 

Several disparate groups have adopted the term “net neutrality” in connection with their efforts to persuade Congress and regulators to adopt rules that could limit the ability of broadband providers to effectively manage or operate their broadband networks. Proponents of net neutrality advocate a variety of regulations, including regulations which prohibit broadband providers from recovering the costs of rising bandwidth usage from any parties other than retail customers; require absolute nondiscrimination for any Internet traffic; and require forms of “open access.” In October 2009, the FCC initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to adopt so-called “net neutrality” rules that it describes as intended to preserve the openness of the Internet. The proposed rules would apply to all providers of broadband Internet access services, whether wireline or wireless, but would not apply to providers of applications, content or other services. The FCC indicated that its comment process seeks comment both on its rationales for the draft proposals as well as their form and scope. Any final rules that ultimately may be adopted, depending upon their scope and terms, could have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s broadband services.

 

The average bandwidth usage of TWC’s high-speed data customers has been increasing significantly in recent years as the amount of high-bandwidth content and the number of applications available on the Internet continue to grow. In order to continue to provide quality service at attractive prices, TWC needs the continued flexibility to develop and refine business models that respond to changing consumer uses and demands and to manage bandwidth usage efficiently. As a result, depending on the form it might take, “net neutrality” legislation or regulation could adversely impact TWC’s ability to operate its high-speed data network profitably and to undertake the upgrades that may be needed to continue to provide high quality high-speed data services and could negatively impact its ability to compete effectively. For a description of current regulatory proposals, see “Business—Regulatory Matters—High-speed Internet Access Services—‘Net neutrality’ legislative and regulatory proposals.”

 

Rate regulation could materially adversely impact TWC’s operations, business, financial results or financial condition.

 

Under current FCC regulations, rates for BST video service and associated equipment are permitted to be regulated. In the majority of its localities, TWC is not subject to BST video rate regulation, either because the local franchising authority has not asked the FCC for

permission to regulate rates or because the FCC has found that there is “effective competition.” Also, there is currently no rate regulation for TWC’s other services, including high-speed data and voice services. It is possible, however, that the FCC or Congress will adopt more extensive rate regulation for TWC’s video services or regulate other services, such as high-speed data and voice services, which could impede TWC’s ability to raise rates, or require rate reductions, and therefore could cause TWC’s business, financial results or financial condition to suffer.

 

TWC may have to pay fees in connection with its cable modem service.

 

Local franchising authorities generally require cable operators to pay a franchise fee of five percent of revenue, which cable operators collect in turn from their subscribers. TWC has taken the position that under the Communications Act, local franchising authorities are allowed to impose a franchise fee only on revenue from “cable services.” Following the FCC’s March 2002 determination that cable modem service does not constitute a “cable service,” TWC and most other multiple system operators stopped collecting and paying franchise fees on cable modem revenue.

 

The FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding to explore the consequences of its March 2002 order. If either the FCC or a court were to determine that, despite the March 2002 order, TWC is required to pay franchise fees on cable modem revenue, TWC’s franchise fee burden could increase going forward. TWC would be permitted to collect those increased fees from its subscribers, but doing so could impair its competitive position as compared to high-speed data service providers who are not required to collect and pay franchise fees. TWC could also become liable for franchise fees back to the time TWC stopped paying them. TWC may not be able to recover those fees from subscribers. Most courts interpreting the rules, including several instances involving TWC, have determined that cable operators are not required to pay these fees on cable modem service.

 

The IRS and state and local tax authorities may challenge the tax characterizations of the Adelphia Acquisition (as defined below), the Redemptions (as defined below) and the Exchange (as defined below), or TWC’s related valuations, and any successful challenge by the IRS or state or local tax authorities could materially adversely affect TWC’s tax profile, significantly increase TWC’s future cash tax payments and significantly reduce TWC’s future earnings and cash flow.

 

The acquisition by TW NY Cable and Comcast of assets comprising in aggregate substantially all of the cable assets of Adelphia Communications Corporation (the “Adelphia Acquisition”) was designed to be a fully taxable asset sale, the redemption by TWC of Comcast’s interests in TWC (the “TWC Redemption”) was designed to qualify as a tax-free split-off under section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Tax Code”), the redemption by TWE of Comcast’s interests in TWE (the “TWE Redemption” and collectively with the TWC Redemption, the “Redemptions”) was designed as a redemption of Comcast’s partnership interest in TWE, and the exchange between TW NY Cable and Comcast immediately after the Adelphia Acquisition (the “Exchange”) was designed as an exchange of designated cable systems. There can be no assurance, however, that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or state or local tax authorities (collectively with the IRS, the “Tax Authorities”) will not challenge one or more of such characterizations or TWC’s related valuations. Such a successful challenge by the Tax Authorities could materially adversely affect TWC’s tax profile (including TWC’s ability to recognize the intended tax benefits from the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions), significantly increase TWC’s future cash tax payments and significantly reduce TWC’s future earnings and cash flow. The tax consequences of the Adelphia Acquisition, the Redemptions and the Exchange are complex and, in many cases, subject to significant uncertainties, including, but not limited to, uncertainties regarding the application of federal, state and local income tax laws to various transactions and events contemplated therein and regarding matters relating to valuation.

 

If the Separation Transactions, including the Distribution, do not qualify as tax-free, either as a result of actions taken or not taken by TWC or as a result of the failure of certain representations by TWC to be true, TWC has agreed to indemnify Time Warner for its taxes resulting from such disqualification, which would be significant. In addition, the restrictions imposed on TWC in connection with the tax treatment of the Distribution could limit TWC’s ability to engage in certain corporate transactions.

 

As part of the Separation Transactions, Time Warner received a private letter ruling from the IRS and Time Warner and TWC received opinions of tax counsel confirming that the Separation Transactions should generally qualify as tax-free to Time Warner and its stockholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The ruling and opinions rely on certain facts, assumptions, representations, and undertakings from Time Warner and TWC regarding the past and future conduct of the companies’ businesses and other matters. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings are incorrect or not otherwise satisfied, Time Warner and its stockholders may not be able to rely on the ruling or the opinions and could be subject to significant tax liabilities. Notwithstanding the private letter ruling and opinions, the IRS could determine on audit that the Separation Transactions should be treated as taxable transactions if it determines that any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings are not correct or have been violated, or for other reasons, including as a result of significant changes in the stock ownership of Time Warner or TWC after the Distribution.

 

Under the tax sharing agreement among Time Warner and TWC, TWC generally would be required to indemnify Time Warner against its taxes resulting from the failure of any of the Separation Transactions to qualify as tax-free as a result of (i) certain actions or failures to act by TWC or (ii) the failure of certain representations made by TWC to be true. Due to the potential impact of significant

stock ownership changes on the taxability of the Separation Transactions, TWC’s indemnification obligations may prevent it from entering into transactions that might otherwise be advantageous, such as issuing equity securities to satisfy financing needs or acquiring businesses or assets with equity securities if such issuances would exceed certain thresholds and such actions could be considered part of a plan or series of related transactions that include the Distribution.

 

In addition, even if TWC bears no contractual responsibility for taxes related to a failure of the Separation Transactions to qualify for their intended tax treatment, Treasury regulation section 1.1502-6 imposes on TWC several liability for all Time Warner federal income tax obligations relating to the period during which TWC was a member of the Time Warner federal consolidated tax group, including the date of the Separation Transactions. Similar provisions may apply under foreign, state, or local law. Absent TWC causing the Separation Transactions to not qualify as tax-free, Time Warner has indemnified TWC against such several liability arising from a failure of the Separation Transactions to qualify for their intended tax treatment.

 

Tax legislation and administrative initiatives or challenges to the Company’s tax positions could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

 

TWC operates cable systems in locations throughout the United States and, as a result, it is subject to the tax laws and regulations of the U.S. federal, state and local governments. From time to time, various legislative and/or administrative initiatives may be proposed that could adversely affect the Company’s tax positions. There can be no assurance that the Company’s effective tax rate or tax payments will not be adversely affected by these initiatives. As a result of state and local budget shortfalls due primarily to the recession as well as other considerations, certain states and localities have imposed or are considering imposing new or additional taxes or fees on TWC’s services or changing the methodologies or base on which certain fees and taxes are computed. Such potential changes include additional taxes or fees on the TWC’s services which could impact its customers, combined reporting and other changes to general business taxes, central/unit-level assessment of property taxes and other matters that could increase TWC’s income, franchise, sales, use and/or property tax liabilities. In addition, U.S. federal, state and local tax laws and regulations are extremely complex and subject to varying interpretations. There can be no assurance that TWC ’s tax positions will not be challenged by relevant tax authorities or that TWC would be successful in any such challenge.

 

Applicable law is subject to change.

 

The exact requirements of applicable law are not always clear, and the rules affecting TWC’s businesses are always subject to change. For example, the FCC may interpret its rules and regulations in enforcement proceedings in a manner that is inconsistent with the judgments TWC has made. Likewise, regulators and legislators at all levels of government may sometimes change existing rules or establish new rules. Congress, for example, considers new legislative requirements for cable operators virtually every year, and there is always a risk that such proposals will ultimately be enacted. In addition, federal, state or local governments and/or tax authorities may change tax laws, regulations or administrative practices that could negatively impact TWC’s operating results and financial condition. See “Business—Regulatory Matters.”

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

TWC’s principal physical assets consist of operating plant and equipment, including signal receiving, encoding and decoding devices, headends and distribution systems and equipment at or near subscribers’ homes for each of TWC’s cable systems. The signal receiving apparatus typically includes a tower, antenna, ancillary electronic equipment and earth stations for reception of satellite signals. Headends, consisting of electronic equipment necessary for the reception, amplification and modulation of signals, are located near the receiving devices. TWC’s distribution system consists primarily of fiber optic and coaxial cables, lasers, routers, switches and related electronic equipment. TWC’s cable plant and related equipment generally are either attached to utility poles under pole rental agreements with local public utilities or the distribution cable is buried in underground ducts or trenches. Customer premise equipment consists principally of set-top boxes and cable modems. The physical components of cable systems require periodic maintenance.

 

TWC’s high-speed data backbone consists of fiber owned by TWC or circuits leased from third-party vendors, and related equipment. TWC also operates regional and national data centers with equipment that is used to provide services, such as e-mail, news and web services to TWC’s high-speed data subscribers and to provide services to TWC’s Digital Phone customers. In addition, TWC maintains a network operations center with equipment necessary to monitor and manage the status of TWC’s high-speed data network.

 

As of December 31, 2009, TWC leased and owned real property housing national operations centers and regional data centers used in its high-speed data services business in Herndon, VA; Raleigh, NC; Syracuse, NY; Austin, TX; Kansas City, MO; Orange County, CA; New York, NY; Coudersport, PA; and Columbus, OH, and TWC also leased and owned locations for its corporate offices in New York, NY; Stamford, CT; and Charlotte, NC as well as numerous business offices, warehouses and properties housing divisional operations

throughout the United States. TWC’s signal reception sites, primarily antenna towers and headends, and microwave facilities are located on owned and leased parcels of land, and TWC owns or leases space on the towers on which certain of its equipment is located. TWC owns most of its service vehicles.

 

TWC believes that its properties, both owned and leased, taken as a whole, are in good operating condition and are suitable and adequate for its business operations.

 

 

Legal Proceedings

 

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company. The complaint, which also named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”) as well as programming content providers (collectively, the “programmer defendants”), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or “à la carte”) basis. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an “à la carte” basis. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action (the “First Amended Complaint”) that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. On December 21, 2007, the distributor defendants, including TWC, and the programmer defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On March 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in an attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its prior dismissal order. On April 22, 2008, the distributor defendants, including the Company, and the programmer defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which motions were denied by the court on June 25, 2008. On July 14, 2008, the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its June 25, 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the district court on August 4, 2008. On May 4, 2009, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”) and on June 12, 2009, the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the district court granted with prejudice on October 15, 2009, terminating the action. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

On June 22, 2005, Mecklenburg County filed suit against TWE-A/N in the General Court of Justice District Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and on July 1, 2005, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Mecklenburg County, the franchisor in TWE-A/N’s Mecklenburg County cable system, alleges that TWE-A/N’s predecessor failed to construct an institutional network in 1981 and that TWE-A/N assumed that obligation upon the transfer of the franchise in 1995. Mecklenburg County is seeking compensatory damages and TWE-A/N’s release of certain video channels it is currently using on the cable system. On April 14, 2006, TWE-A/N filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on January 26, 2010 on the basis plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The time to appeal this decision has not yet expired. If the decision is appealed, TWE-A/N will defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

On June 16, 1998, plaintiffs in Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable filed a purported nationwide class action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that TWE sold its subscribers’ personally identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and common law. The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 6, 1998, TWE filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on September 7, 1999. On December 8, 1999, TWE filed a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on January 9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief. On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification and other matters. On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed. On October 25, 2005, the district court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that settlement was denied on January 26, 2007. The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve this action on terms that are not material to the Company and submitted their agreement to the district court on April 2, 2008. On July 6, 2009, the district court granted approval of the settlement, which certain class members have appealed with respect to attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously should the settlement not be upheld.

 

Certain Patent Litigation

 

On September 1, 2006, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that TWC and several other cable operators, among other defendants, infringe 18 patents purportedly relating to the Company’s customer call center operations and/or voicemail services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary

damages as well as injunctive relief. On March 20, 2007, this case, together with other lawsuits filed by Katz, was made subject to a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2008, TWC and other defendants filed “common” motions for summary judgment, which argued, among other things, that a number of claims in the patents at issue are invalid under Sections 112 and 103 of the Patent Act. On June 19 and August 4, 2008, the court issued orders granting, in part, and denying, in part, those motions. Defendants filed additional individual motions for summary judgment in August 2008, which argued, among other things, that defendants’ respective products do not infringe the surviving claims in plaintiff’s patents. On August 13, 2009, the district court found one additional patent invalid, but denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment on three remaining patents, and on October 27, 2009, the district court denied the defendants’ requests for reconsideration of the decision. On January 29, 2010, the district court found one of the three remaining patents invalid based on a motion for summary judgment brought by another defendant. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (“Rembrandt”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed several patents purportedly related to a variety of technologies, including high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. In addition, on September 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company infringes several patents purportedly related to “high-speed cable modem internet products and services.” On June 18, 2007, these cases, along with other lawsuits filed by Rembrandt, were made subject to an MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2008, the district court issued its claims construction orders. In response to these orders, the plaintiff has indicated it will dismiss its claims relating to the alleged infringement of eight patents purportedly relating to high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. The plaintiff has not indicated that it will dismiss its claim relating to one remaining patent alleged to relate to digital video decoder technology and summary judgment motions are pending relating to the remaining claim. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claim vigorously.

 

On April 26, 2005, Acacia Media Technologies (“AMT”) filed suit against TWC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that TWC infringes several patents held by AMT. AMT has publicly taken the position that delivery of broadcast video (except live programming such as sporting events), pay-per-view, VOD and ad insertion services over cable systems infringe its patents. AMT has brought similar actions regarding the same patents against numerous other entities, and all of the previously pending litigations have been made the subject of an MDL Order consolidating the actions for pretrial activity in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 25, 2005, the TWC action was consolidated into the MDL proceedings. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. On September 25, 2009, the district court ruled on the Company’s summary judgment motions finding all AMT patents invalid and, on February 2, 2010, AMT filed its notice of appeal to this decision. The Company will defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

From time to time, the Company receives notices from third parties claiming that it infringes their intellectual property rights. Claims of intellectual property infringement could require TWC to enter into royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms, incur substantial monetary liability or be enjoined preliminarily or permanently from further use of the intellectual property in question. In addition, certain agreements entered may require the Company to indemnify the other party for certain third-party intellectual property infringement claims, which could increase the Company’s damages and its costs of defending against such claims. Even if the claims are without merit, defending against the claims can be time consuming and costly.

 

As part of the TWE Restructuring, Time Warner agreed to indemnify the cable businesses of TWE from and against any and all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from specified litigation matters brought against the TWE non-cable businesses. Although Time Warner has agreed to indemnify the cable businesses of TWE against such liabilities, TWE remains a named party in certain litigation matters.

 

The costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in those matters (including those matters described above), and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and operating results.

 

 

Not applicable.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY

 

Pursuant to General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K, the information regarding the Company’s executive officers required by Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K is hereby included in Part I of this report.

 

The following table sets forth the name of each executive officer of the Company, the office held by such officer and the age of such officer as of February 19, 2010.

 

 

Set forth below are the principal positions held during at least the last five years by each of the executive officers named above:

 

 

PART II

 

 

The principal market for TWC Common Stock is the NYSE. In connection with the Separation, TWC effected the Recapitalization in March 2009, causing each share of TWC Class A common stock and Class B common stock to be converted into one share of TWC Common Stock. For quarterly price information for the two years ended December 31, 2009 with respect to TWC Common Stock and, prior to the Recapitalization, TWC Class A common stock, as adjusted for the TWC Reverse Stock Split and reflecting the payment of the Special Dividend, see “Quarterly Financial Information” at page 103 herein, which information is incorporated herein by reference. There was no established public trading market for the Company’s Class B common stock, which prior to the Separation was held of record by one holder. There were approximately 33,251 holders of record of TWC Common Stock as of February 10, 2010.

 

On March 12, 2009, TWC paid the Special Dividend of $10.27 per share ($30.81 per share after giving effect to the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, aggregating $10.856 billion) to holders of record on March 11, 2009 of TWC’s outstanding Class A common stock and Class B common stock. On January 28, 2010, TWC announced that it would begin paying a regular quarterly cash dividend of $.40 per share on TWC Common Stock. TWC expects to pay the first dividend on March 15, 2010 to stockholders of record on February 26, 2010. TWC currently expects to pay comparable cash dividends in the future; however, changes in TWC’s dividend program will depend on the Company’s earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other factors considered relevant by the Company’s Board of Directors.

 

 

The selected financial information of TWC for the five years ended December 31, 2009 is set forth at pages 101 through 102 herein and is incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

The information set forth under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition” at pages 32 through 56 herein is incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

The information set forth under the caption “Market Risk Management” at pages 51 through 53 herein is incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

The consolidated financial statements of TWC and the report of independent registered public accounting firm thereon set forth at pages 57 through 97 and 99 herein are incorporated herein by reference.

 

Quarterly Financial Information set forth at page 103 herein is incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

Not Applicable.

 

 

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

 

TWC, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of TWC’s “disclosure controls and procedures” (as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that TWC’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted by TWC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and that information required to be disclosed by TWC is accumulated and communicated to TWC’s management to allow timely decisions regarding the required disclosure.

 

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting and the report of the independent registered public accounting firm thereon set forth at pages 98 and 100 is incorporated herein by reference.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

There have not been any changes in TWC’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2009 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Not applicable.

 

PART III

 

 

Information called for by Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III is incorporated by reference from the Company’s definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders pursuant to Regulation 14A, except that (i) the information regarding the Company’s executive officers called for by Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K has been included in Part I of this Annual Report and (ii) the information regarding certain Company equity compensation plans called for by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K is set forth below.

 

The Company has adopted a Code of Ethics for its Senior Executive and Senior Financial Officers. A copy of the Code is publicly available on the Company’s website at www.timewarnercable.com/investors. Amendments to the Code or any grant of a waiver from a provision of the Code requiring disclosure under applicable SEC rules will also be disclosed on the Company’s website.

 

Equity Compensation Plan Information

 

The following table summarizes information as of December 31, 2009, about the Company’s outstanding equity compensation awards and shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

 

 

 

 

In connection with the Separation, the Company’s stockholders approved amendments to the 2006 Stock Plan that, among other things, increased the number of shares of TWC Common Stock authorized for issuance thereunder by 18.0 million shares. As a result, as of December 31, 2009, the Company was authorized to issue up to 51.3 million shares of TWC Common Stock under the 2006 Stock Plan (which also reflects certain Separation-related adjustments to outstanding awards effected pursuant to the terms of the 2006 Stock Plan and the TWC Reverse Stock Split).

 

Stock options granted under the 2006 Plan have exercise prices equal to the fair market value of TWC Common Stock at the date of grant. Generally, the stock options vest ratably over a four-year vesting period and expire ten years from the date of grant. Certain stock option awards provide for accelerated vesting upon the grantee’s termination of employment after reaching a specified age and years of

service. In connection with the payment of the Special Dividend and the TWC Reverse Stock Split, adjustments were made to the number of underlying shares and exercise prices of outstanding TWC stock options to maintain the fair value of those awards.

 

PART IV

 

 

(a)(1)-(2) Financial Statements and Schedules:

 

(i) The list of consolidated financial statements and schedules set forth in the accompanying Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and Other Financial Information at page 31 herein is incorporated herein by reference. Such consolidated financial statements and schedules are filed as part of this Annual Report.

 

(ii) All other financial statement schedules are omitted because the required information is not applicable, or because the information required is included in the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

 

(3) Exhibits:

 

The exhibits listed on the accompanying Exhibit Index are filed or incorporated by reference as part of this Annual Report and such Exhibit Index is incorporated herein by reference. Exhibits 10.31 through 10.43 and 10.46 through 10.58 listed on the accompanying Exhibit Index identify management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements required to be filed as exhibits to this Annual Report, and such listing is incorporated herein by reference.

SIGNATURES

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

 

Name:     Glenn A. Britt

 

Dated: February 19, 2010

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Management’s discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition (“MD&A”) is a supplement to the accompanying consolidated financial statements and provides additional information on Time Warner Cable Inc.’s (together with its subsidiaries, “TWC” or the “Company”) business, current developments, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. MD&A is organized as follows:

 

 

OVERVIEW

 

TWC is the second-largest cable operator in the U.S., with technologically advanced, well-clustered systems located mainly in five geographic areas – New York State (including New York City), the Carolinas, Ohio, southern California (including Los Angeles) and Texas. As of December 31, 2009, TWC served approximately 14.6 million residential and commercial customers who subscribed to one or more of its three primary subscription services – video, high-speed data and voice – totaling approximately 26.4 million primary service units (as defined in “Results of Operations”).

 

As discussed further in “—Recent Developments,” on March 12, 2009, TWC completed its separation from Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”), which, prior to the Separation Transactions (as defined below), owned approximately 84% of the common stock of TWC (representing a 90.6% voting interest) and a 12.43% non-voting common stock interest in TW NY Cable Holding Inc. (“TW NY”), a subsidiary of TWC. As a result of the separation, Time Warner no longer has an ownership interest in TWC or TW NY.

 

TWC offers video, high-speed data and voice services over its broadband cable systems to residential and commercial customers. TWC markets its services separately and in “bundled” packages of multiple services and features. As of December 31, 2009, 57.3% of TWC’s residential and commercial customers subscribed to two or more of its primary services, including 23.7% of its customers who subscribed to all three primary services. TWC also sells advertising to a variety of national, regional and local advertising customers.

 

Video generates the largest share of TWC’s revenues and, as of December 31, 2009, TWC had approximately 12.9 million video subscribers, of which approximately 8.9 million received digital video signals. Although TWC expects to continue to lose video subscribers as a result of increased competition, TWC believes it will continue to increase video revenues for the foreseeable future through the offering of incremental video services (e.g., digital video recorder services and additional programming tiers), as well as through equipment rentals and price increases; however, future video revenue growth rates will depend on video subscriber and

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

penetration levels, competition, regulation, pricing and the state of the economy. Video programming costs represent a major component of TWC’s expenses and are expected to continue to increase, reflecting rate increases on existing programming services, costs associated with retransmission consent agreements, growth in video subscribers taking tiers of service with more channels and the expansion of service offerings (e.g., new network channels). TWC expects that its video programming costs as a percentage of video revenues will continue to increase as increases in programming costs outpace growth in video revenues. TWC also offers video services to business customers and of the Company’s 12.9 million video subscribers as of December 31, 2009, 160,000 were commercial video subscribers.

 

As of December 31, 2009, TWC had approximately 9.0 million residential high-speed data subscribers. TWC expects continued growth in residential high-speed data subscribers and revenues for the foreseeable future; however, future high-speed data subscriber and revenue growth rates will depend on high-speed data penetration levels, competition, regulation, pricing, the rate of wireless substitution of wireline high-speed data service and the state of the economy. TWC also offers high-speed data services to business customers, as well as networking and transport services, and had 295,000 commercial high-speed data subscribers as of December 31, 2009.

 

During the fourth quarter of 2009, TWC launched Road Runner Mobile^tm, a wireless mobile broadband service, in several cities and expects to continue the roll-out during 2010. The Company estimates that it will incur “start up” losses of approximately $50 million during 2010 in connection with the deployment of this service.

 

As of December 31, 2009, TWC had approximately 4.2 million residential Digital Phone subscribers. TWC expects increases in Digital Phone subscribers and revenues for the foreseeable future; however, future Digital Phone subscriber and revenue growth rates will depend on Digital Phone penetration levels, competition, regulation, pricing, the rate of wireless substitution of wireline phone service and the state of the economy. TWC also offers its commercial Digital Phone service, Business Class Phone, in nearly all of its operating areas and had 67,000 commercial Digital Phone subscribers as of December 31, 2009.

 

TWC faces intense competition for customers from a variety of alternative communications, information and entertainment delivery sources. TWC competes with incumbent local telephone companies, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., across each of its primary services. Some of these telephone companies offer a broad range of services with features and functions comparable to those provided by TWC and in bundles similar to those offered by TWC, sometimes with the addition of wireless service. Each of TWC’s services also faces competition from other companies that provide services on a stand-alone basis. TWC’s video service faces competition from direct broadcast satellite services, and increasingly from companies that deliver content to consumers over the Internet. TWC’s high-speed data service faces competition from wireless data providers, and competition in voice service is increasing as more homes in the U.S. are replacing their wireline telephone service with wireless service. Technological advances and product innovations have increased and will likely continue to increase the number of alternatives available to TWC’s customers, further intensifying competition. The more competitive environment may negatively affect the growth of primary service units and average monthly subscription revenues per primary service unit and, additionally, may increase TWC’s cost to obtain certain video programming.

 

Since the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company has experienced a slowdown in growth across all primary service unit categories, which the Company believes is in significant part a result of a challenging economic environment. In particular, the Company believes its subscriber growth has been negatively affected by the slowdown in new home formation and high housing vacancy rates, as well as high unemployment and the related reduction in consumer spending.

 

Management believes that cash generated by or available to TWC should be sufficient to fund its capital and liquidity needs for the foreseeable future. As of December 31, 2009, the Company had approximately $5.5 billion of unused committed capacity (including cash and equivalents). Additionally, there are no maturities of the Company’s long-term debt prior to the February 2011 maturity of the Company’s $5.875 billion senior unsecured five-year revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Credit Facility”), which, as of December 31, 2009, supported outstanding borrowings of approximately $1.3 billion under the Company’s commercial paper program. The Company expects to enter into a new revolving credit agreement prior to the maturity of the current Revolving Credit Facility. See “Financial Condition and Liquidity” for further details regarding the Company’s committed capacity.

 

Recent Developments

 

Separation from Time Warner, Recapitalization and TWC Reverse Stock Split

 

On March 12, 2009, TWC’s separation from Time Warner was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement dated as of May 20, 2008 (the “Separation Agreement”) between TWC and Time Warner and certain of their subsidiaries. In accordance with the Separation Agreement, on February 25, 2009, a subsidiary of Time Warner transferred its 12.43% non-voting common stock interest in TW NY to TWC in exchange for 80 million newly issued shares (approximately 27 million shares after giving effect to the 1-for-3 reverse stock split discussed below) of TWC’s Class A common stock (the “TW NY Exchange”). On March 12, 2009, TWC paid a special cash dividend of $10.27 per share ($30.81 per share after giving effect to the 1-for-3 reverse stock split, aggregating $10.856 billion) to holders of record on

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

March 11, 2009 of TWC’s outstanding Class A common stock and Class B common stock (the “Special Dividend”). Following the payment of the Special Dividend, each outstanding share of TWC Class A common stock and TWC Class B common stock was automatically converted (the “Recapitalization”) into one share of common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “TWC Common Stock”). TWC’s separation from Time Warner (the “Separation”) was effected as a pro rata dividend of all shares of TWC Common Stock held by Time Warner to holders of record of Time Warner’s common stock (the “Spin-Off Dividend” or the “Distribution”). The TW NY Exchange, the Special Dividend, the Recapitalization, the Separation and the Distribution collectively are referred to as the “Separation Transactions.”

 

To pay a portion of the Special Dividend, on March 12, 2009, TWC borrowed (i) the full committed amount of $1.932 billion under its 364-day senior unsecured term loan facility (the “2008 Bridge Facility”) and (ii) approximately $3.3 billion under the Revolving Credit Facility. The Company funded the remainder of the Special Dividend with approximately $5.6 billion of cash on hand. See “—2009 Bond Offerings and Termination of Lending Commitments” below for further details regarding the termination of the 2008 Bridge Facility.

 

In connection with the Separation Transactions, on March 12, 2009, the Company implemented a reverse stock split of the TWC Common Stock (the “TWC Reverse Stock Split”) at a 1-for-3 ratio, effective immediately after the Recapitalization. The shares of TWC Common Stock distributed in the Spin-Off Dividend reflected both the Recapitalization and the TWC Reverse Stock Split.

 

During 2009 and 2008, the Company incurred pretax costs related to the Separation, which have been reflected in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations as follows (in millions):

 

 

The Separation-related costs recorded in other income (expense), net, consist of direct transaction costs (e.g., legal and professional fees) and such costs recorded in interest expense, net, consist of debt issuance costs. The debt issuance costs for 2009 primarily relate to the portion of the upfront loan fees for the 2008 Bridge Facility that was recognized as expense due to the repayment of all borrowings outstanding under, and the resulting termination of, such facility with a portion of the net proceeds of the March 2009 Bond Offering (as defined below).

 

2009 Bond Offerings and Termination of Lending Commitments

 

In 2009, TWC issued, in total, $6.5 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes and debentures under a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in three public underwritten offerings (the “2009 Bond Offerings”). The bond offering in March 2009 consisted of $1.0 billion principal amount of 7.50% notes due 2014 and $2.0 billion principal amount of 8.25% notes due 2019 (the “March 2009 Bond Offering”). The bond offering in June 2009 consisted of $1.5 billion principal amount of 6.75% debentures due 2039 (the “June 2009 Bond Offering”). The bond offering in December 2009 consisted of $500 million principal amount of 3.50% notes due 2015 and $1.5 billion principal amount of 5.00% notes due 2020 (the “December 2009 Bond Offering”). TWC’s obligations under the debt securities issued in the 2009 Bond Offerings are guaranteed by Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (“TWE”) and TW NY.

 

The Company used $1.934 billion of the net proceeds from the March 2009 Bond Offering to repay all of the borrowings outstanding under the 2008 Bridge Facility, as well as accrued interest and commitment fees, and such facility was terminated by the parties thereto in accordance with its terms. Additionally, as a result of the March 2009 Bond Offering and the termination of the 2008 Bridge Facility, the Company terminated Time Warner’s commitment (as lender) under a two-year $1.535 billion senior unsecured supplemental term loan facility in accordance with its terms. The Company used the remaining net proceeds from the March 2009 Bond Offering to repay a portion of the borrowings outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility.

 

The Company used the net proceeds of $1.444 billion from the June 2009 Bond Offering and a portion of the net proceeds of $1.957 billion from the December 2009 Bond Offering to repay all of the outstanding borrowings under its five-year term loan facility, which terminated in accordance with its terms as a result of such repayment. The remaining net proceeds from the December 2009 Bond Offering were used to repay a portion of the borrowings outstanding under the Company’s commercial paper program and for general corporate purposes.

 

See Note 7 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further details regarding the 2009 Bond Offerings.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Common Stock Dividend

 

On January 27, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend on TWC Common Stock. The quarterly dividend of $0.40 per share of TWC Common Stock, representing the first payment of a planned annual dividend of $1.60 per share, will be payable in cash on March 15, 2010 to stockholders of record at the close of business on February 26, 2010.

 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION

 

Revenues

 

The Company’s revenues consist of Subscription and Advertising revenues. Subscription revenues consist of revenues from video, high-speed data and voice services.

 

Video revenues include residential and commercial subscriber fees for the Company’s three main levels or “tiers” of video programming—Basic Service Tier (“BST”), Expanded Basic Service Tier (or Cable Programming Service Tier) (“CPST”) and Digital Basic Service Tier (“DBT”), as well as fees for genre-based programming tiers, such as movies, sports and Spanish language tiers. Video revenues also include related equipment rental charges, installation charges and franchise fees collected on behalf of local franchising authorities. Additionally, video revenues include revenues from premium channels, transactional video-on-demand (e.g., events and movies) and digital video recorder services. Several ancillary items are also included within video revenues, such as commissions earned on the sale of merchandise by home shopping networks and revenues from home security services.

 

High-speed data revenues primarily include subscriber fees from both residential and commercial subscribers, along with related home networking fees and installation charges. High-speed data revenues also include fees paid to TWC by (a) the Advance/Newhouse Partnership for the ability to distribute TWC’s Road Runner^tm high-speed data service and TWC’s management of certain functions for the Advance/Newhouse Partnership, including, among others, programming and engineering, and (b) other distributors of TWC’s Road Runner high-speed data service, which together totaled $127 million, $139 million and $132 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. In addition, high-speed data revenues include fees received from third-party internet service providers whose on-line services are provided to some of TWC’s customers (e.g., Earthlink). Commercial high-speed data revenues also include amounts generated by the sale of networking and transport services (e.g., Metro Ethernet services and point-to-point transport services offered to wireless telephone providers, Internet service providers and competitive carriers on a wholesale basis).

 

Voice revenues include subscriber fees from residential and commercial Digital Phone subscribers, along with related installation charges. For the year ended December 31, 2007, voice revenues also included subscriber fees from circuit-switched telephone (9,000 subscribers as of December 31, 2007). During the first half of 2008, TWC completed the process of discontinuing the provision of circuit-switched telephone service in accordance with regulatory requirements.

 

Advertising revenues include the fees charged to local, regional and national advertising customers for advertising placed on the Company’s video and high-speed data services. Nearly all Advertising revenues are attributable to advertising placed on the Company’s video service.

 

Costs and Expenses

 

Costs of revenues include the following costs directly associated with the delivery of services to subscribers or the maintenance of the Company’s delivery systems: video programming costs; high-speed data connectivity costs and certain high-speed data customer care support service costs; voice network costs; other service-related expenses, including non-administrative labor; franchise fees; and other related costs.

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses include amounts not directly associated with the delivery of services to subscribers or the maintenance of the Company’s delivery systems, such as administrative labor costs, marketing expenses, billing system charges, non-plant repair and maintenance costs, other administrative overhead costs and, prior to the Separation, fees paid to Time Warner for reimbursement of certain administrative support functions.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Use of Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization and Free Cash Flow

 

In discussing its performance, the Company may use certain measures that are not calculated and presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). These measures include OIBDA and Free Cash Flow, which the Company defines as follows:

 

 

Management uses OIBDA, among other measures, in evaluating the performance of the Company’s business because it eliminates the effects of (1) considerable amounts of noncash depreciation and amortization and (2) items not within the control of the Company’s operations managers (such as net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests, income tax benefit (provision), other income (expense), net, and interest expense, net). Free Cash Flow is used as an important indicator of the Company’s liquidity after the payment of cash taxes, interest and other cash items, including its ability to reduce net debt, pay dividends and make strategic investments. Performance measures derived from OIBDA are also used in the Company’s annual incentive compensation programs. In addition, management believes that both of these measures are commonly used by analysts, investors and others in evaluating the Company’s performance and liquidity.

 

These measures have inherent limitations. For example, OIBDA does not reflect capital expenditures or the periodic costs of certain capitalized assets used in generating revenues. To compensate for such limitations, management evaluates performance through, among other measures, Free Cash Flow, which reflects capital expenditure decisions and net income attributable to TWC, which reflects the periodic costs of capitalized assets. OIBDA also fails to reflect the significant costs borne by the Company for income taxes and debt servicing costs, the share of OIBDA attributable to noncontrolling interests, the results of the Company’s equity investments or other non-operational income or expense. Management compensates for these limitations by using other analytics such as a review of net income (loss) attributable to TWC. Free Cash Flow, a liquidity measure, does not reflect payments made in connection with investments and acquisitions, which reduce liquidity. To compensate for this limitation, management evaluates such investments and acquisitions through other measures such as return on investment analyses.

 

These measures should be considered in addition to, not as substitutes for, the Company’s Operating Income (Loss), net income (loss) attributable to TWC and various cash flow measures (e.g., cash provided by operating activities), as well as other measures of financial performance and liquidity reported in accordance with GAAP, and may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies.

 

Changes in Basis of Presentation

 

Noncontrolling Interests

 

In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued authoritative guidance that establishes accounting and reporting standards for a noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary, including the accounting treatment upon the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. This guidance became effective for TWC on January 1, 2009 and has been applied prospectively, except for the provisions related to the presentation of noncontrolling interests, which have been applied retrospectively for all periods presented. As required by this guidance, the Company has recast the presentation of noncontrolling interests in the prior year financial statements so that they are comparable to those of 2009. Noncontrolling interests of $1.110 billion as of December 31, 2008 were reclassified to a component of total equity as reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. For the year ended December 31, 2008, minority interest income of $1.022 billion ($619 million, net of tax) and, for the year ended December 31, 2007, minority interest expense of $165 million ($99 million, net of tax) are excluded from net income (loss) in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. Net income (loss) attributable to TWC per common share for prior periods is not impacted.

 

Reverse Stock Split

 

In connection with the Separation Transactions, on March 12, 2009, the Company implemented the TWC Reverse Stock Split at a 1-for-3 ratio. The Company has recast the presentation of share and per share data in the accompanying consolidated financial statements to reflect the TWC Reverse Stock Split.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Reclassifications

 

Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior years’ financial information to conform to the December 31, 2009 presentation.

 

Recent Accounting Standards

 

See Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for other accounting standards adopted in 2009 and accounting standards not yet adopted.

 

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

2009 vs. 2008

 

The following discussion provides an analysis of the Company’s results of operations and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

 

Revenues. Revenues by major category were as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

 

Subscription revenues increased as a result of increases in video, high-speed data and voice revenues. The increase in video revenues was primarily due to an increase in revenues from digital video recorder service, video price increases and the continued growth of digital video subscribers, which were partially offset by a decrease in video subscribers (resulting, in part, from the December 2008 sale of certain non-core cable systems serving 78,000 video subscribers) and a decline in premium channel subscribers and transactional video-on-demand revenues. Commercial video revenues were $252 million in 2009 compared to $239 million in 2008. Additional information regarding the major components of video revenues was as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

High-speed data revenues increased primarily due to growth in high-speed data subscribers and an increase in cell tower backhaul and Metro Ethernet revenues. Commercial high-speed data revenues were $593 million in 2009 compared to $526 million in 2008.

 

The increase in voice revenues was due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers, partially offset by a decrease in average revenues per subscriber. Commercial voice revenues were $70 million in 2009 compared to $28 million in 2008.

 

Average monthly subscription revenues (which includes video, high-speed data and voice revenues) per unit were as follows:

 

 

Advertising revenues decreased due to a decline in Advertising revenues from national, regional and local businesses and political advertising revenues. The Company expects that Advertising revenues will increase in 2010 as compared to 2009 primarily due to an increase in political advertising revenues, as well as an increase in Advertising revenues from national, regional and local businesses.

 

Costs of revenues. The major components of costs of revenues were as follows (in millions):

 

 

Costs of revenues increased 5.0%, primarily related to increases in video programming, employee and voice costs.

 

The increase in video programming costs was primarily due to contractual rate increases, incremental costs associated with the continued retransmission of certain local broadcast stations and the expansion of service offerings, partially offset by a decline in video and premium channel subscriptions. Average programming costs per video subscriber increased 8.5% to $25.60 per month in 2009 from $23.60 per month in 2008.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Employee costs increased primarily due to an increase in pension expense and employee medical and compensation expenses.

 

Voice costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of voice services, including network connectivity costs. Voice costs increased primarily due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers.

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses. The components of selling, general and administrative expenses were as follows (in millions):

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased slightly primarily as a result of lower bad debt expense, which declined by $38 million in 2009 primarily due to improvement in collection efforts and a reduction in the allowance for doubtful accounts to reflect the quality of residential receivables as of the end of 2009. The decrease in bad debt expense benefited both the fourth quarter and full year 2009. Casualty insurance expense in 2009 and 2008 included benefits of approximately $11 million and $16 million, respectively, due to changes in estimates of previously established casualty insurance accruals. Employee costs in 2009 remained essentially flat as an increase in pension expense was primarily offset by a decrease in employee headcount.

 

As a result of the Separation, pursuant to their terms, Time Warner equity awards held by TWC employees were forfeited and/or experienced a reduction in value. During 2009, the Company recorded $9 million of costs associated with TWC stock options and restricted stock units granted to its employees to offset these forfeitures and/or reduced values.

 

Restructuring costs. The results for 2009 and 2008 included restructuring costs of $81 million and $15 million, respectively. The Company eliminated approximately 1,300 positions during 2009. The Company expects to incur additional restructuring charges during 2010.

 

Impairment of cable franchise rights. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a noncash impairment charge of $14.822 billion to reduce the carrying value of its cable franchise rights as a result of its annual impairment testing of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. There was no such impairment charge in 2009. See “Critical Accounting Policies—Asset Impairments—Goodwill and Indefinite-lived Intangible Assets” and Notes 3 and 10 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further details on the Company’s 2009 and 2008 impairment testing of cable franchise rights.

 

Loss on sale of cable systems. During 2008, the Company recorded a loss of $58 million as a result of the sale of certain non-core cable systems, which closed in December 2008.

 

Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization to Operating Income (Loss). The following table reconciles Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization to Operating Income (Loss). In addition, the table provides

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

the components from Operating Income (Loss) to net income (loss) attributable to TWC for purposes of the discussions that follow (in millions):

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization. As discussed above, in 2009, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization was impacted by restructuring costs and Separation-related “make-up” equity award costs. In 2008, Operating Loss before Depreciation and Amortization was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization increased principally as a result of revenue growth, partially offset by higher costs of revenues, as discussed above. Additionally, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization in 2008 was negatively impacted by $14 million of costs resulting from the impact of Hurricane Ike on certain of the Company’s cable systems in southeast Texas and Ohio.

 

Depreciation expense. The slight increase in depreciation expense was primarily associated with continued purchases of customer premise equipment, scalable infrastructure and line extensions occurring during or subsequent to 2008, partially offset primarily by certain property, plant and equipment acquired in the 2006 transactions with Adelphia Communications Corporation (“Adelphia”) and Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) (the “Adelphia/Comcast Transactions”) that was fully depreciated as of July 31, 2008. The Company expects depreciation expense to increase in 2010 as compared to 2009 primarily as a result of continued purchases of customer premise equipment, scalable infrastructure and line extensions occurring during or subsequent to 2009.

 

Amortization expense. Amortization expense in 2009 benefited from an approximate $13 million adjustment to reduce excess amortization recorded in prior years. The Company expects amortization expense to decrease in 2010 as compared to 2009 as a result of customer relationships acquired in the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions becoming fully amortized during the third quarter of 2010.

 

Operating Income (Loss). As discussed above, in 2009, Operating Income was impacted by restructuring costs and Separation-related “make-up” equity award costs. In 2008, Operating Loss was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, Operating Income increased primarily due to the increase in Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization, as discussed above.

 

Interest expense, net. Interest expense, net, increased primarily due to higher average debt outstanding during 2009. Additionally, interest expense, net, for 2009 included $13 million of debt issuance costs primarily related to the portion of the upfront loan fees for the 2008 Bridge Facility that was recognized as expense due to the repayment of all borrowings outstanding under, and the resulting termination of, such facility with a portion of the net proceeds of the March 2009 Bond Offering. Interest expense, net, for 2008 included $45 million of debt issuance costs primarily related to the portion of the upfront loan fees for the 2008 Bridge Facility that was recognized as expense due to the reduction of commitments under such facility as a result of the public debt issuances in June 2008 and November 2008 (the “2008 Bond Offerings”). The Company expects that interest expense, net, will increase in 2010 primarily due to higher average interest rates on outstanding debt.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Other expense, net. Other expense, net, detail is shown in the table below (in millions):

 

 

 

Income tax benefit (provision). TWC’s income tax benefit (provision) has been prepared as if the Company operated as a stand-alone taxpayer for all periods presented. In 2009, the Company recorded an income tax provision of $820 million and, in 2008, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $5.109 billion. The effective tax rate for 2009 was 42.9%, which included the impact of the passage of the California state budget during the first quarter of 2009 that, in part, changed the methodology of income tax apportionment in California. This tax law change resulted in an increase in state deferred tax liabilities and a corresponding noncash tax provision of $38 million. Absent this tax law change, the effective tax rate for 2009 would have been 40.9%. The effective tax rate for 2008 was 39.1%, which included the impacts of the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems. Absent these items, the effective tax rate for 2008 would have been 44.2%. The decrease in the Company’s effective tax rate for 2009 (excluding the California state tax law change in 2009 and the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems in 2008) was primarily due to the tax impact of the 2008 impairment charge on the Company’s investment in Clearwire Communications LLC, as discussed above.

 

Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests. Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests in 2008 included the impacts of the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems, as discussed above. Excluding these items, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests decreased principally due to the changes in the ownership structure of the Company as a result of the TW NY Exchange, which occurred in February 2009.

 

Net income (loss) attributable to TWC and net income (loss) attributable to TWC per common share. Net income (loss) attributable to TWC and net income (loss) attributable to TWC per common share were as follows for 2009 and 2008 (in millions, except per share data):

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

As discussed above, in 2009, net income attributable to TWC and net income attributable to TWC per common share were impacted by restructuring costs and Separation-related “make-up” equity award costs. In 2008, net loss attributable to TWC and net loss attributable to TWC per common share were impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, net income attributable to TWC and net income attributable to TWC per common share increased primarily due to an increase in Operating Income and decreases in other expense, net, and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, partially offset by increases in interest expense, net, and income tax provision, each as discussed above.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

2008 vs. 2007

 

The following discussion provides an analysis of the Company’s results of operations and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes thereto.

 

Revenues. Revenues by major category were as follows (in millions):

 

 

Selected subscriber-related statistics were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

 

Subscription revenues increased as a result of increases in video, high-speed data and voice revenues. The increase in video revenues was primarily due to an increase in revenues from digital video recorder service, the continued growth of digital video subscribers and video price increases. Additional information regarding the major components of video revenues was as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

High-speed data revenues increased primarily due to growth in high-speed data subscribers.

 

The increase in voice revenues was due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers. Voice revenues in 2007 also included $34 million of revenues associated with subscribers who received traditional, circuit-switched telephone service.

 

Advertising revenues increased primarily due to an increase in political advertising revenues, partially offset by a decline in Advertising revenues from national, regional and local businesses.

 

Costs of revenues. The major components of costs of revenues were as follows (in millions):

 

 

Costs of revenues increased 8.0%, primarily related to increases in video programming, employee, voice and other direct operating costs.

 

The increase in video programming costs was primarily due to contractual rate increases and an increase in the percentage of video subscribers who also subscribe to expanded tiers of video services. Average programming costs per video subscriber increased 7.1% to $23.60 per month in 2008 from $22.04 per month in 2007.

 

Employee costs increased primarily due to higher headcount resulting from the continued growth of digital video, high-speed data and Digital Phone services, as well as salary increases.

 

High-speed data costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of high-speed data services, including network connectivity costs. High-speed data costs decreased primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by growth in subscribers and usage per subscriber.

 

Voice costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of voice services, including network connectivity costs. Voice costs increased primarily due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers, partially offset by a decline in per-subscriber connectivity costs due to volume discounts received in 2008.

 

Other direct operating costs increased primarily due to increases in certain other costs associated with the continued growth of digital video, high-speed data and Digital Phone services.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses. The major components of selling, general and administrative expenses were as follows (in millions):

 

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased primarily due to higher employee and marketing costs. Employee costs increased primarily due to headcount and salary increases and marketing costs increased primarily due to intensified marketing efforts. Other costs in 2008 included a benefit of approximately $16 million due to changes in estimates of previously established casualty insurance accruals. Excluding this benefit, other costs increased primarily due to higher miscellaneous administrative costs.

 

Merger-related and restructuring costs. The results for 2008 and 2007 included restructuring costs of $15 million and $13 million, respectively. In addition, during 2007, the Company expensed non-capitalizable merger-related costs associated with the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions of $10 million.

 

Impairment of cable franchise rights. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a noncash impairment charge of $14.822 billion to reduce the carrying value of its cable franchise rights as a result of its annual impairment testing of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets.

 

Loss on sale of cable systems. During 2008, the Company recorded a loss of $58 million as a result of the sale of certain non-core cable systems, which closed in December 2008.

 

Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization to Operating Income (Loss). The following table reconciles Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization to Operating Income (Loss). In addition, the table provides the components from Operating Income (Loss) to net income (loss) attributable to TWC for purposes of the discussions that follow (in millions):

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

Operating Income (Loss) before Depreciation and Amortization. As discussed above, in 2008, Operating Loss before Depreciation and Amortization was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. In 2007, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization was impacted by merger-related and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization increased principally as a result of revenue growth (particularly in high margin high-speed data revenues), partially offset by higher costs of revenues and selling, general and administrative expenses. Additionally, Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization in 2008 was negatively impacted by $14 million of costs resulting from the impact of Hurricane Ike on certain of the Company’s cable systems in southeast Texas and Ohio.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Depreciation expense. The increase in depreciation expense was primarily associated with purchases of customer premise equipment, scalable infrastructure and line extensions occurring during or subsequent to 2007, partially offset by certain property, plant and equipment acquired in the Adelphia/Comcast Transactions that was fully depreciated as of July 31, 2008.

 

Amortization expense. Amortization expense decreased primarily due to the absence of amortization expense associated with customer relationships recorded in connection with the 2003 restructuring of TWE, which were fully amortized as of the end of the first quarter of 2007.

 

Operating Income (Loss). As discussed above, in 2008, Operating Loss was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. In 2007, Operating Income was impacted by merger-related and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, Operating Income increased primarily due to the increase in Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization, partially offset by the increase in depreciation expense, as discussed above.

 

Interest expense, net. Interest expense, net, increased primarily due to an increase in fixed-rate debt with higher average interest rates as a result of the 2008 Bond Offerings. Additionally, interest expense, net, was impacted by the April 2007 issuance of fixed-rate debt securities and, for 2008, also included $45 million of debt issuance costs primarily related to the portion of the upfront loan fees for the 2008 Bridge Facility that was recognized as expense due to the reduction of commitments under such facility as a result of the 2008 Bond Offerings. These items were partially offset by a decrease in interest on the Company’s variable-rate debt, which resulted from both a decrease in variable-rate debt and lower variable interest rates, and an increase in interest income.

 

Other income (expense), net. Other income (expense), net, detail is shown in the table below (in millions):

 

 

 

Income tax benefit (provision). TWC’s income tax benefit (provision) has been prepared as if the Company operated as a stand-alone taxpayer for all periods presented. In 2008, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $5.109 billion and, in 2007, the Company recorded an income tax provision of $806 million. The effective tax rate was 39.1% in 2008, which included the impacts of the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems, as compared to 39.7% in 2007. Absent these items, the effective tax rate for 2008 would have been 44.2%. The increase in the Company’s effective tax rate for 2008 (excluding the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems) was primarily due to the tax impact of the 2008 impairment charge on the Company’s investment in Clearwire Communications LLC, as discussed above.

 

Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests. Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests in 2008 included the impacts of the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems, as discussed above. Excluding these items, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests increased primarily due to larger profits recorded by TW NY during 2008.

 

Net income (loss) attributable to TWC and net income (loss) attributable to TWC per common share. Net income (loss) attributable to TWC and net income (loss) attributable to TWC per common share were as follows for 2008 and 2007 (in millions, except per share data):

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

As discussed above, in 2008, net loss attributable to TWC and net loss attributable to TWC per common share were impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights, the loss on sale of cable systems and restructuring costs. In 2007, net income attributable to TWC and net income attributable to TWC per common share were impacted by merger-related and restructuring costs. Excluding these items, net income attributable to TWC and net income attributable to TWC per common share decreased primarily due to the change in other income (expense), net, (which included the 2008 impairment on the Company’s investment in Clearwire Communications LLC and the 2007 gain resulting from the distribution of TKCCP’s assets) and increases in net income attributable to noncontrolling interests and interest expense, net, partially offset by an increase in Operating Income and a decrease in income tax provision.

 

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY

 

Management believes that cash generated by or available to TWC should be sufficient to fund its capital and liquidity needs for the foreseeable future. There are no maturities of the Company’s long-term debt prior to the February 2011 maturity of the Revolving Credit Facility, which, as of December 31, 2009, supported outstanding borrowings of approximately $1.3 billion under the Company’s commercial paper program. The Company expects to enter into a new revolving credit agreement prior to the maturity of the current Revolving Credit Facility. TWC’s sources of cash include cash provided by operating activities, cash and equivalents on hand, borrowing capacity under its committed credit facility and commercial paper program, as well as access to capital markets.

 

TWC’s unused committed capacity was $5.512 billion as of December 31, 2009, reflecting $1.048 billion of cash and equivalents and $4.464 billion of available borrowing capacity under the Company’s $5.875 billion Revolving Credit Facility.

 

Current Financial Condition

 

As of December 31, 2009, the Company had $22.331 billion of debt, $1.048 billion of cash and equivalents (net debt of $21.283 billion, defined as total debt less cash and equivalents), $300 million of mandatorily redeemable non-voting Series A Preferred Equity Membership Units (the “TW NY Cable Preferred Membership Units”) issued by a subsidiary of TWC, Time Warner NY Cable LLC (“TW NY Cable”), and $8.685 billion of total TWC shareholders’ equity. As of December 31, 2008, the Company had $17.728 billion of debt, $5.449 billion of cash and equivalents (net debt of $12.279 billion), $300 million of TW NY Cable Preferred Membership Units and $17.164 billion of total TWC shareholders’ equity.

 

The following table shows the significant items contributing to the increase in net debt from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009 (in millions):

 

 

In 2008, TWC filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) that allows TWC to offer and sell from time to time senior and subordinated debt securities and debt warrants.

 

On January 27, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend on TWC Common Stock. The quarterly dividend of $0.40 per share of TWC Common Stock, representing the first payment of a planned annual dividend of $1.60 per share, will be payable in cash on March 15, 2010 to stockholders of record at the close of business on February 26, 2010.

 

Included in prepaid expenses and other current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009 is a $34 million net receivable from The Reserve Fund’s Primary Fund (the “The Reserve Fund”). On January 29, 2010, the Company received an additional $33 million from The Reserve Fund reducing its remaining net receivable to $1 million. See Note 18 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of the Company’s investment in The Reserve Fund.

 

Cash Flows

 

Cash and equivalents decreased $4.401 billion in 2009 and increased $5.217 billion and $181 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. Components of these changes are discussed below in more detail.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Operating Activities

 

Details of cash provided by operating activities are as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

Cash provided by operating activities decreased from $5.300 billion in 2008 to $5.179 billion in 2009. This decrease was primarily related to an increase in net interest payments and the change in working capital requirements, partially offset by an increase in Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization excluding the noncash items noted in the table above (as previously discussed) and the decrease in pension plan contributions.

 

The increase in net interest payments resulted from higher average debt outstanding during 2009, as well as the timing of interest payments. The Company expects that its net interest payments will increase in 2010 primarily as a result of the timing of interest payments related to the 2009 Bond Offerings.

 

The Company contributed $160 million to its funded defined benefit pension plans during 2009 and may make discretionary cash contributions to its funded defined benefit pension plans during 2010. See Note 14 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of the funded status of the Company’s defined benefit pension plans.

 

Net income taxes paid during 2009 benefited from reimbursements from Time Warner in accordance with a tax sharing arrangement between TWC and Time Warner, as well as the impact of the accelerated depreciation deductions provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, partially offset by the reversal of a portion of similar benefits received in 2008 from the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. These Acts provide for a first year bonus depreciation deduction of 50% of the cost of the Company’s qualified capital expenditures for the year. The Company expects that net income taxes paid will increase significantly in 2010, primarily due to the absence of bonus depreciation (unless there is a legislative extension of bonus depreciation) and the reversal of a portion of the bonus depreciation benefits received in 2008 and 2009.

 

Cash provided by operating activities increased from $4.563 billion in 2007 to $5.300 billion in 2008. This increase was primarily related to an increase in Operating Income before Depreciation and Amortization excluding the noncash items noted in the table above (as previously discussed), a favorable change in working capital requirements and decreases in net income tax and net interest payments, partially offset by 2008 pension plan contributions. The change in working capital requirements was primarily due to the timing of payments and collections of accounts receivable. The decrease in net income tax payments was primarily due to the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

Investing Activities

 

Details of cash used by investing activities are as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

Cash used by investing activities decreased from $4.140 billion in 2008 to $3.307 billion in 2009. This decrease was principally due to the change in investments and acquisitions, net, and a decrease in capital expenditures. The Company expects that capital expenditures will decrease to less than $3.0 billion in 2010.

 

Cash used by investing activities increased from $3.432 billion in 2007 to $4.140 billion in 2008. This increase was principally due to the Company’s investment in Clearwire Communications LLC and the classification of the Company’s investment in The Reserve Fund as prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet (as discussed above), as well as an increase in capital expenditures.

 

TWC’s capital expenditures included the following major categories (in millions):

 

 

 

 

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION—(Continued)

 

 

TWC incurs expenditures associated with the construction of its cable systems. Costs associated with the construction of transmission and distribution facilities are capitalized. TWC generally capitalizes expenditures for tangible fixed assets having a useful life of greater than one year. Capitalized costs include direct material, labor and overhead, as well as interest. Sales and marketing costs, as well as the costs of repairing or maintaining existing fixed assets, are expensed as incurred. With respect to customer premise equipment, which includes set-top boxes and high-speed data and telephone modems, TWC capitalizes installation costs only upon the initial deployment of these assets. All costs incurred in subsequent disconnects and reconnects of previously installed customer premise equipment are expensed as incurred. Depreciation on these assets is provided generally using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives. For set-top boxes and modems, the useful life is 3 to 5 years, and, for distribution plant, the useful life is up to 16 years.

 

Financing Activities

 

Details of cash provided (used) by financing activities are as follows (in millions):