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, 2010

 

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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), 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 (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) 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.  þ

 

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 15, 2011, there were 343,385,153 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, 2010) was approximately $18.5 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, 2010, TWC served approximately 14.5 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 26.7 million primary service units (“PSUs”). TWC markets its services separately and in “bundled” packages of multiple services and features. As of December 31, 2010, 59.0% of TWC’s residential and commercial customers subscribed to two or more of its primary services, including 25.4% of its customers who subscribed to all three primary services. TWC also sells advertising to a variety of national, regional and local advertising customers.

 

Recent Developments

 

Dividend and Stock Repurchase Program

 

In March 2010, the Company began paying a quarterly cash dividend of $0.40 per share of TWC common stock to TWC stockholders, which totaled $576 million during 2010. On January 26, 2011, TWC’s Board of Directors declared an increased quarterly cash dividend of $0.48 per share of TWC common stock. Additionally, on October 29, 2010, TWC’s Board of Directors authorized a $4.0 billion common stock repurchase program (the “Stock Repurchase Program”). Purchases under the Stock Repurchase Program may be made from time to time on the open market and in privately negotiated transactions. The size and timing of the Company’s purchases under the Stock Repurchase Program are based on a number of factors, including price and business and market conditions. Through December 31, 2010, the Company repurchased 8.0 million shares of TWC common stock for $515 million, including 0.6 million shares repurchased for $43 million that settled in January 2011.

 

2010 Bond Offering and $4.0 Billion Revolving Credit Facility

 

On November 15, 2010, the Company issued $1.9 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes and debentures under a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in a public offering (the “2010 Bond Offering”). The Company’s obligations under the debt securities issued in the 2010 Bond Offering are guaranteed by Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (“TWE”) and TW NY Cable Holding Inc. (“TW NY”). The Company used a portion of the net proceeds from the 2010 Bond Offering for general corporate purposes, including the repurchase of its common stock under the Stock Repurchase Program.

 

On November 3, 2010, the Company entered into a credit agreement for a $4.0 billion senior unsecured three-year revolving credit facility maturing in November 2013 (the “$4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility”). In connection with the entry into this facility, the Company’s $5.875 billion senior unsecured five-year revolving credit facility, scheduled to mature in February 2011, was terminated, and the Company’s unsecured commercial paper program was reduced from $6.0 billion to $4.0 billion. The Company’s obligations under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility are guaranteed by TWE and TW NY.

 

For more information about the 2010 Bond Offering and the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Overview—Recent Developments—2010 Bond Offering and $4.0 Billion Revolving Credit Facility” and Note 9 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

 

NaviSite Acquisition

 

On February 1, 2011, TWC entered into an agreement to acquire NaviSite, Inc. (“NaviSite”) for $5.50 per share of NaviSite common stock in cash, or a total equity value of approximately $230 million. As of February 1, 2011, NaviSite had approximately $50 million of debt and approximately $35 million of preferred equity. NaviSite provides enterprise-class hosting, managed application, messaging and cloud services. Its common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Capital

Market. The transaction, which is subject to NaviSite stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011. On February 8, 2011, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported class of NaviSite stockholders against NaviSite, certain of its officers and directors and TWC alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and that the consideration to be paid in connection with the transaction is inadequate. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the transaction and monetary damages. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

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 of 1934, as amended (the “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 (www.sec.gov).

 

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, 2010, TWC had approximately 12.3 million residential video subscribers.

 

Programming tiers.  TWC generally offers three main levels or “tiers” of video programming and music services–Basic Service Tier (“BST”), Expanded Basic Service Tier (or Cable Programming Service Tier) (“CPST”) and Digital Basic Service Tier (“DBT”). BST includes broadcast television signals, satellite-delivered broadcast networks and superstations, local origination channels, a few other networks and public access, educational and government channels. CPST enables BST subscribers to add to their service national, regional and local cable entertainment, news 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 and sports channels in a number of cities. DBT enables subscribers who receive digital video signals (“digital video subscribers”) to receive additional cable networks. Generally, CPST and DBT subscribers can purchase genre-based programming tiers, such as Time Warner Cable Movie Pass and Time Warner Cable Sports Pass, and subscribers to any tier of video service can purchase 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, including select movies and special events in 3-D, for which separate per-use fees are charged, and free access to selected movies, programming from broadcast 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, 2010, 51.7%, or approximately 4.6 million, of TWC’s residential and commercial digital video subscribers also subscribed to its DVR service. During 2010, TWC launched remote DVR management, which provides customers with the ability to program their DVRs via a website, and a multi-room DVR service, which allows a program recorded on a DVR to be watched on any other connected television in a customer’s home, in the majority of its service areas.

 

Enhanced TV services.  TWC is expanding the use of Video-On-Demand (“VOD”) technology to introduce additional enhancements to the video experience. Start Over^®, TWC’s Emmy^®-award winning technology, 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, and Look Back^® extends the window for viewing a program to 72 hours after it has aired. Start Over and Look Back are available in the majority of TWC’s service areas.

 

TV Everywhere capability.  During 2010, TWC began offering ESPN and ESPN3 online to customers who subscribe to a video tier that includes ESPN, and in January 2011, it added ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN Buzzer Beater for customers who subscribe to a video tier that includes those networks. During 2010, TWC also launched Speed2, a new broadband-only channel, for its Sports Pass video subscribers and offered live coverage to authenticated customers from the 2010 Winter Olympics. TWC plans to offer additional content via its TV Everywhere capability during 2011.

 

High-speed Data Services

 

TWC’s high-speed data services provide customers with a fast, always-on connection to the Internet. Subscribers pay a fixed monthly fee based on the level of service received. As of December 31, 2010, TWC served approximately 9.5 million residential high-speed data subscribers.

 

Road Runner^® Broadband.  TWC offers multiple tiers of Road Runner Broadband service to meet the different needs of its subscribers. Utilizing DOCSIS 3.0 technology, TWC offers Wideband, Extreme and Turbo Plus to subscribers in a number of its service areas. Wideband, TWC’s highest speed tier, offers subscribers speeds of up to 50 Mbps downstream and up to 5 Mbps upstream. TWC also offers Turbo, Standard, Basic and Lite tiers in all of its service areas. Turbo offers subscribers speeds of up to 15 Mbps downstream and up to 2 Mbps upstream. In the majority of its service areas, TWC provides Turbo and Standard subscribers with PowerBoost at no additional charge, which allows users to initiate brief download speed bursts when TWC’s network capacity permits.

 

TWC’s Road Runner Broadband 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 Broadband, most of TWC’s cable systems provide their high-speed data subscribers with the ability to subscribe to the services of certain other on-line providers, including Earthlink.

 

Mobile Internet.  In the fourth quarter of 2009, TWC began offering a wireless mobile broadband Internet access service in several cities and, as of December 31, 2010, the Company had 13,000 wireless mobile broadband subscribers. This service provides customers with mobile broadband Internet access inside or outside their homes on their laptops via a

TWC-provided data card or any WiFi-enabled device with IntelliGo, a mobile hotspot device that TWC began offering its mobile broadband subscribers during 2010, which provides wireless connectivity to up to five devices simultaneously. TWC offers wireless mobile broadband services delivered over Clearwire Corporation’s (“Clearwire”) fourth-generation (“4G”) WiMax network and Sprint Nextel Corporation’s (“Sprint”) third-generation (“3G”) CDMA network, with speeds of up to 6 Mbps on Clearwire’s 4G WiMax network and up to 1.5 Mbps on Sprint’s 3G CDMA network. TWC is also an equity investor in Clearwire, see “—Operating Partnerships, Joint Ventures and Significant Investments” below.

 

Voice Services

 

TWC’s residential Digital Phone service, Digital Home Phone, offers customers 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, 2010, TWC served approximately 4.4 million residential Digital Home Phone subscribers. During 2010, TWC launched a residential web portal, VoiceZone^tm, in the majority of its service areas, which allows Digital Home Phone subscribers who subscribe to voicemail service to use a web portal to customize their Digital Home Phone features, access caller ID and listen to their voicemail on their computer at no additional charge.

 

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. Video services are provided to commercial subscribers at contractually established fees based on the tier of service. As of December 31, 2010, TWC served 165,000 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 Internet access service to small businesses with speeds of up to 15 Mbps downstream and up to 2 Mbps upstream and, in several of its service areas, up to 50 Mbps downstream and up to 5 Mbps upstream with Wideband (“Shared Internet Access”). TWC also provides dedicated Internet 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 10 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 began offering its wireless mobile broadband Internet service, Time Warner Cable Business Class Mobile, to commercial customers in certain of its service areas during 2010.

 

High-speed data services are provided to commercial subscribers at contractually established fees based on the services received. As of December 31, 2010, TWC had 334,000 commercial high-speed data subscribers.

 

Commercial networking and transport services.  TWC offers Metro Ethernet service that connects two or more locations for commercial customers with geographically dispersed locations with speeds 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 cell tower backhaul services to wireless telephone providers, Internet service providers and competitive carriers on a wholesale basis.

Acquisition of NaviSite.  On February 1, 2011, TWC entered into an agreement to acquire NaviSite, which provides enterprise-class hosting, managed application, messaging and cloud services. The transaction, which is subject to NaviSite stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customer closing conditions, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011.

 

Voice Services

 

TWC offers its commercial Digital Phone 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 various calling plans, along with other key business features, such as call restrictions, non-verified account codes and three-way call transfer. TWC also offers 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.

 

Business Class Phone is provided to subscribers at contractually established fees based on the services received. As of December 31, 2010, TWC had 111,000 commercial Digital Phone 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. In addition, TWC sells advertising in its owned and operated news channels and its Roadrunner.com portal to local and regional advertisers.

 

In many locations, TWC has formed advertising “interconnects” or entered into representation agreements with contiguous cable system operators under which TWC sells advertising on behalf of those operators in exchange for a percentage of the advertising revenue. This enables TWC to deliver commercials across wider geographic areas, replicating the reach of the local broadcast stations as much as possible. During 2010, TWC also entered into agreements with Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) under which TWC sells advertising on behalf of Verizon FiOS TV in New York, New York, Dallas, Texas and Los Angeles, California in exchange for a percentage of the advertising revenue. In addition, TWC, together with Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) and Cox Communications, Inc., owns National Cable Communications LLC (“National Cable Communications”), the largest cable television advertising firm in the United States, which represents a number of cable operators in selling advertising time to national and regional advertisers. Through its partial ownership of National Cable Communications, TWC is a party to an agreement to sell DirecTV Group Inc. (“DirecTV”) inventory of advertising time on regional sports networks (“RSNs”). TWC also sells the video advertising inventory of certain RSNs in New York City and Ohio.

 

Advanced Advertising

 

TWC is exploring various means to deliver advanced advertising offerings and measurement data to advertisers. During 2010, TWC deployed EBIF technology to approximately 5 million set-top boxes in its service areas. EBIF capabilities enable video subscribers to use their remote control to request from a VOD channel that coupons, samples and/or brochures be sent to their home, which allows TWC to provide advertisers with feedback about the impact of their advertising and the value of interactive features. TWC also currently provides anonymized VOD and enhanced TV viewing data to its programming partners for a fee.

 

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 programmers and advertisers. One component of Canoe’s strategy is to enable TWC and the cable industry as a whole to support national programmers and advertisers with a one-stop advanced advertising bureau. During 2010, Canoe successfully launched its first interactive television advertisement product across multiple cable operators’ service areas in partnership with three cable networks. Canoe and its cable operator owners, including the Company, also made significant progress during 2010 developing and advancing standards for audience measurement.

Marketing and Sales

 

TWC uses the brand name Time Warner Cable and has recently updated its graphic brand identity, the “eye and ear” symbol. The brand identity and brand messaging are 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.

 

Increasingly, TWC uses proprietary segmentation techniques to target products and services to specific groups of existing and potential customers. For example, in November 2010, TWC launched SignatureHome^tm, the Company’s first product and service bundle targeting the Company’s higher-end demographic with a video, high-speed data and voice bundle that includes certain enhanced features. Also, during the fourth quarter of 2010, TWC began trials of TV Essentials, a video-only product targeting budget-conscious consumers. TWC plans to continue to tailor services by customer segment and market these services with a mix of targeted media and direct marketing efforts.

 

Customer Care

 

TWC continues to upgrade its customer care processes and infrastructure. The introduction of SignatureService^tm as part of TWC’s SignatureHome offering is a departure from its traditional “one size fits all” customer service. At the same time, TWC is upgrading its call center platforms to allow customer calls to be routed more efficiently and utilizing online approaches, such as eCare and MyService at www.timewarnercable.com, to give customers another alternative for engaging with the Company. The Company also continues to focus on improving reliability and the technical quality of its plant to avoid repeat trouble calls, which should lower customers’ need to contact the Company.

 

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, 2010, 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 introduce innovative new services to its customers, as well as meet its competitive needs, TWC anticipates that it will need to continually use the bandwidth available to its systems more efficiently. To accommodate increasing demands for greater capacity in its network, TWC has deployed a technology known as switched digital video (“SDV”) in all of its service areas. 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. In addition to its use of SDV technology, TWC expects that over the next several years it will continue to reclaim analog spectrum.

Set-top Boxes and IP-connected Devices

 

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 (i.e., downstream-only), such as a CableCARD-equipped “digital cable-ready” television, cannot transmit upstream signals 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. In 2009, TWC began distributing tuning adaptors to subscribers in service areas where TWC has deployed SDV technology at no additional charge, which enable certain compatible unidirectional devices, such as the CableCARD-equipped Moxi^® and Tivo Inc. HD DVRs, to access and view channels delivered via SDV technology.

 

During 2011, TWC plans to begin delivering video offerings, including both live linear and On-Demand programming, directly to subscriber broadband-connected consumer electronic devices, including “Smart TVs,” game consoles and tablet personal computers, without the need for a set-top box or a CableCARD.

 

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 the compulsory copyright provisions of the Copyright Act as well as under either the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) “must carry” rules or a written retransmission consent agreement with the relevant station owner. 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 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 rents these devices to subscribers at monthly rates. See “—Technology—Cable Systems—Set-top Boxes and IP-connected Devices” 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 certain of its subscribers with set-top box program guides from Cisco Systems and Rovi 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.

 

Voice services.  Under multi-year agreements between TWC and Sprint, Sprint assists TWC in providing voice 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 the fourth quarter of 2010, TWC began replacing Sprint as the provider of these services, a process that is expected to continue through the first quarter of 2014.

 

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, 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 including 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 or “over-the-top” phone service. Additionally, technological advances and product innovations have increased and will likely continue to increase the number of alternatives available to TWC’s customers and potential 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 handsets. In addition, both AT&T and Verizon have begun offering services that allow subscribers to view television programming and rent movies on mobile devices. 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. 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 and mobile devices. 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 its commercial high-speed data, networking and voice services. In addition, 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, networking, transport and voice 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 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, 2010, TWC had approximately 47,500 employees, including approximately 940 part-time employees. Approximately 4.3% 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 (“Adelphia”) and Comcast (the “Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order”), which is in effect until July 2012. 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; the 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 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.

 

In March 2010, a coalition of fourteen public interest groups and multi-channel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”), including TWC, petitioned the FCC for reform of the retransmission consent rules. The petition stated that outdated retransmission consent rules allow broadcasters to threaten signal blackouts to force MVPDs to pay significant increases in retransmission consent fees to the detriment of MVPDs and consumers. Shortly thereafter, in March 2010, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the petition. The FCC is expected to initiate a rulemaking proceeding on retransmission consent in March 2011. TWC is unable to predict what rules, if any, the FCC might adopt in connection with retransmission consent.

 

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. The proposed rate could be higher than the current rate paid by cable service providers. In May 2010, in furtherance of the recommendations made in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to refresh the record regarding the appropriate high-speed Internet service pole attachment rates and to seek comment on bringing the telecommunications rate and the cable rate closer to parity and as low as possible. It is unclear whether or how a ruling would apply to VoIP services; however, 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 rate paid by telecommunications providers. TWC opposed this petition. If the FCC

issues an Order or grants the electric utility companies’ peititions, TWC’s pole attachment payments could increase materially. 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 Government Regulation—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 rental 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, conditional-access security cards or 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 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 May 2010, the FCC’s Media Bureau granted a limited waiver of the prohibition on using selectable output controls to encourage Motion Picture Association of America member companies, independent filmmakers and their MVPD partners to offer films for home viewing during early release windows.

 

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 launched two proceedings, seeking comment on improvements for CableCARDs and longer term measures to encourage innovation in the market for navigation devices, such as requiring MVPDs and consumer electronics manufacturers to develop a universal “all-video” adapter. In October 2010, the FCC adopted an Order to address CableCARD issues. The new rules included requirements that cable operators provide reasonable access to switched digital programming for retail one-way devices through a technology of the operator’s choice, provide credits to customers who use their own retail set-top boxes rather than renting and allow self-installation of CableCARDs. The Order also granted relief to cable operators by eliminating the requirement for certain connectors on HD set-top boxes in favor of alternative outputs and allowing operators to deploy low-end HD set-top boxes that do not include CableCARDs. The universal “all-video” adapter proceeding remains pending. If the FCC requires MVPDs to develop an “all-video” adapter, 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 statutory license. The elimination or substantial modification of this statutory copyright license has been the subject of ongoing legislative and administrative review, and, if eliminated, modified or interpreted by the U.S. Copyright Office differently, could adversely affect TWC’s ability to obtain suitable programming and could substantially increase TWC’s programming costs.

 

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.  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 Adelphia/Comcast Transactions Order imposes certain additional program carriage conditions on TWC, which will expire in July 2012, related to RSNs. 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 (“MASN”) because the claim was brought prior to the suspension. In that case, in December 2010, the FCC reversed the earlier decision of the FCC’s Media Bureau and found that TWC had legitimate reasons for its carriage decisions regarding MASN and had not discriminated against the network on the basis of affiliation. Herring Broadcasting, Inc., which does business as WealthTV, also filed a program carriage complaint against TWC and other cable operators alleging discrimination against WealthTV’s programming in favor of an allegedly similarly situated video programming vendor 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. This proceeding remains 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.

 

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 proposals and regulations.  Over the past several years, 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 was 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.

In October 2009, the FCC initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to adopt so-called “net neutrality” or “open Internet” rules applicable to all providers of broadband Internet access services, whether wireline or wireless. The rules as proposed would not have applied to providers of applications, content or other services. Subsequently, in response to the April 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturning the FCC’s August 2008 ruling pursuant to Title I of the Act finding Comcast had violated the FCC’s Net Neutrality Policy Statement, the FCC adopted a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) to explore classifying the transmission component of facilities-based wireline broadband Internet access service as a Title II common carrier. The NOI only touched on how non-facilities based and wireless broadband Internet service providers should be regulated and did not address the regulatory framework applicable to application or content providers, on-line service providers or Internet backbone providers. In September 2010, the FCC issued a public notice seeking comments on the relationship between its October 2009 proposed net neutrality regulations and “managed” or “specialized” services that are provided over the same last-mile facilities as broadband Internet access service. On December 21, 2010, the FCC adopted an Open Internet Order pursuant to its Title I authority imposing net neutrality obligations on broadband Internet access providers, including TWC. While the Order specifically indicates that the FCC pursued the exercise of Title I jurisdiction in lieu of a Title II reclassification approach, the NOI addressing a Title II reclassification nevertheless remains pending.

 

The new Open Internet rules are based on three basic principles: transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination, and are applicable to fixed and wireless broadband Internet access providers to different extents. Under the new rules, fixed and wireless broadband Internet access providers are required to make their practices transparent to both consumers and providers of Internet content, services, applications, and devices on both their website and at the point-of-sale. In addition, subject to “reasonable network management”, fixed broadband Internet access providers are prohibited from blocking lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices, and from engaging in unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic. The new rules specifically do not apply to “managed” or “specialized” services that share the same network infrastructure as broadband Internet access services, although the Order indicates that the FCC intends to observe market developments in this area and may take further regulatory action if it believes it is warranted. These rules do not become effective until 60 days after the Federal Register notice announcing the Office of Management and Budget’s decision regarding the information collection requirements associated with the new rules. Although these steps have not yet occurred, two parties have already filed challenges to the Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

 

For further discussion of “net neutrality” and its impact on TWC, 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.”

 

National Broadband Plan.  As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress directed the FCC to develop a National Broadband Plan, which was delivered to Congress on March 16, 2010. The plan focuses primarily on 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, and the plan includes over 200 recommendations to ensure that every American has affordable access to, and an understanding of, broadband capability. The recommendations focus on four areas: broadband competition policy to maximize innovation, investment and consumer benefits; fixed and mobile broadband infrastructure to facilitate more deployment and upgrades; Universal Service Fund (“USF”) reform to support high-cost deployment, affordability, adoption and utilization of broadband services; and increasing reliance on broadband for achieving America’s national priorities to incorporate broadband into all sectors of the economy through federal, state, local and tribal governments.

 

On April 6, 2010, the FCC released its 2010 Broadband Action Agenda setting out the purpose and timing of more than 60 rulemakings and other notice-and-comment proceedings to implement the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan intended to accelerate the deployment and adoption of robust, affordable broadband for all Americans; to help 100 million U.S. homes get affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits over the next decade; to promote innovation, investment, competition and consumer interests throughout the broadband ecosystem; and to advance the use of broadband for key national priorities, including public safety, health care and education. The FCC has commenced numerous proceedings in accordance with the Broadband Action Agenda, and TWC is actively participating in many of these proceedings, including those addressing USF reform, consumer disclosure and transparency, network reliability and survivability and pole attachments. 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 all 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 nomadic and other interconnected VoIP services having similar characteristics. 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, and in October 2010, the Maine Public Utilities Commission ruled that TWC’s voice services should be regulated in Maine as a telephone service and that TWC must obtain CLEC and Interexchange Carrier (long-distance) authorizations for its voice operations. 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. Some rural telephone companies claim protection under the rural exemption provisions of Section 251 of the Communications Act and refuse to interconnect with CLECs for purposes of exchanging TWC’s VoIP traffic unless the rural exemption is lifted by the state commission. In July 2010, TWC filed a Petition for Preemption with the FCC that requests a determination that interconnection with incumbent phone company networks for the purpose of establishing reciprocal compensation arrangements pursuant to sections 251 (a) and (b) of the Act is not subject to the rural exemption under Section 251 of the Communications Act. That Petition remains pending. 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 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 required to contribute to various state and federal regulatory funds, including state universal funds and the Federal Universal Service Fund.

Other Federal Regulatory Requirements

 

The Communications Act also includes numerous other provisions, applicable to some extent, to one or more of TWC’s services. These provisions apply to customer service, subscriber privacy, marketing practices, equal employment opportunity, technical standards and equipment compatibility, antenna structure notification, marking, lighting, emergency alert system requirements, disability access, and the collection of annual regulatory fees, which are calculated based on the number of subscribers served, the types of FCC licenses held and certain interstate revenue thresholds. 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.

 

Operating Partnerships, Joint Ventures and Significant Investments

 

Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.

 

TWE is a Delaware limited partnership that was formed in 1992 and is wholly owned by TWC. As of December 31, 2010, TWE held cable systems with 3.2 million video subscribers. As of December 31, 2010, 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%. TWC is a guarantor of TWE’s $2.6 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt securities. TWE is also a guarantor under TWC’s $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility, its $4.0 billion commercial paper program and its $20.4 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt securities. 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 Time Warner NY Cable LLC (“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 video subscribers as of December 31, 2002 (which amount is not included in TWE-A/N’s 4.6 million consolidated video subscribers, as of December 31, 2010) 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. 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 12 months notice. 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 Communications

 

TWC holds a 4.7% equity interest in Clearwire Communications LLC (“Clearwire Communications”), the operating subsidiary of Clearwire, a publicly traded company that was formed by the combination of the respective wireless broadband businesses of Sprint and Clearwire Communications. During 2010, Clearwire deployed its 4G wireless network in several cities, providing 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 connection with TWC’s initial investment in Clearwire Communications, 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. At the same time, affiliates of TWC and the other Clearwire investors, including Intel Corporation (“Intel”), Google Inc., Comcast and Bright House Networks, LLC, 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.

In its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, Clearwire disclosed that it may not be able to continue to operate as a going concern. Subsequently, in December 2010, Clearwire raised $1.404 billion in a private placement of debt securities. There can be no assurance that Clearwire will be able to obtain sufficient financing in the future to continue its business, and it is possible that the Company may record an impairment charge on its investment in Clearwire Communications in the future. See “Risk Factors—Risk Related to Competition—TWC’s competitive position and business and financial results could suffer if consumers replace TWC’s traditional high-speed data or voice services with wireless data or voice services or if TWC does not develop compelling wireless offerings.”

 

SpectrumCo

 

TWC is a participant in a joint venture with certain other cable companies (“SpectrumCo”) that holds advanced wireless spectrum (“AWS”) licenses that 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. 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 services.

 

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 and on mobile devices, 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 or “over-the-top” service.

 

Any inability to compete effectively or an increase in competition 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,” “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 consumers replace TWC’s traditional high-speed data or voice services with wireless data or voice services or if TWC 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 faces competition in its high-speed data service from a number of wireless data providers. If a significant number of consumers chose to replace the Company’s high-speed data service with wireless broadband, TWC’s business and financial results could suffer.

 

In order to provide its customers with high-speed data services both inside and outside the home, during the fourth quarter of 2009, TWC launched a wireless mobile broadband Internet access service in several cities utilizing Clearwire’s mobile broadband network with service pursuant to a wholesale agreement with Clearwire. As of December 31, 2010, TWC had 13,000 wireless mobile broadband subscribers. 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. In its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, Clearwire disclosed that it may not be able to continue to operate as a going concern. Subsequently, in December 2010, Clearwire raised $1.404 billion in a private placement of debt securities. There can be no assurance that Clearwire will be able to obtain sufficient financing in the future to continue its business, and it is possible that the Company may record an impairment charge on its investment in Clearwire Communications in the future.

 

TWC does not offer wireless voice products although some of its wireline competitors and their affiliates do offer such products. If a significant number of consumers chose to replace the Company’s voice service with wireless service, TWC’s business and financial results could suffer. 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 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 protracted slowdown, and the future economic environment may continue to be challenging. 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 and their video service with Internet-delivered and/or over-air content, 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 the number of occupied homes in TWC’s operating areas continues to decline and/or the number of home foreclosures significantly increases, 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.

Regulation may limit TWC’s ability to make required investments or adopt business models that are needed to continue to provide robust high-speed data service.

 

The rising popularity of bandwidth-intensive Internet-based services increases the demand for and usage of TWC’s high-speed data service. Examples of such services include the delivery of video via streaming technology and by download, peer-to-peer file sharing services and gaming services. TWC will need flexibility to develop pricing and business models that will allow it to respond to such changing consumer uses and demands and, if necessary, to invest more capital than currently expected to increase the bandwidth capacity of its systems. 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.”

 

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, “cyber attacks,” 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, “cyber 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 Inc. (“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 2010 annual impairment analysis, which was performed as of July 1, 2010, 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—Indefinite-lived Intangible Assets and Goodwill” 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, 2010, TWC had $20.374 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.

 

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 do so 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 these 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, they experience operating or financial difficulties, they significantly increase the amount TWC pays for necessary products or services, or they cease production of any necessary product due to lack of demand, TWC’s ability to provide some services may be materially adversely affected. Any of 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. In the fourth quarter of 2010, TWC began replacing Sprint as the provider of these services. However, the migration will not be complete until the first quarter of 2014, 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.

 

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. 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 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 a program carriage complaint. 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.

 

On December 21, 2010, the FCC adopted an Open Internet Order imposing net neutrality obligations on broadband Internet access providers. The new Open Internet rules, based on principles of transparency, no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination, are applicable to fixed and wireless broadband Internet access providers to different extents. Under the new rules, fixed and wireless broadband Internet access providers, including TWC, are required to make their practices transparent to both consumers and providers of Internet content, services, applications and devices on both the website and at the point-of-sale. In addition, subject to “reasonable network management,” fixed broadband Internet access providers, including TWC, are prohibited from blocking lawful content, applications, services and non-harmful devices, and from engaging in unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.

 

In order to continue to provide quality high-speed data service at attractive prices, TWC needs the continued flexibility to develop and refine business models that respond to changing consumer uses and demands, to manage bandwidth usage efficiently and to continue to invest in its systems. It is unclear how the FCC’s net neutrality regulations will be implemented once they become effective and how “reasonable network management” will be determined. The new regulations 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 the recently-adopted obligations, see “Business—Regulatory Matters—High-speed Internet Access Services—‘Net neutrality’ legislative proposals and regulations.”

 

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 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. 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 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, and in May 2010, the FCC issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking to refresh the record regarding a unified broadband Internet rate and to seek comment on bringing the telecommunications rate and the cable rate closer to parity.

 

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.

 

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 (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 (as defined below), including the Distribution (as defined below), 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.

 

As part of TWC’s separation from Time Warner in March 2009 (the “Separation”), Time Warner received a private letter ruling from the IRS and Time Warner and TWC received opinions of tax counsel confirming that the transactions undertaken in connection with the Separation, including the transfer by a subsidiary of Time Warner of its 12.43% non-voting common stock interest in TW NY to TWC in exchange for 80 million newly issued shares of TWC’s Class A common stock, TWC’s payment of a special cash dividend to holders TWC’s outstanding Class A and Class B common stock, the conversion of each share of TWC’s outstanding Class A and Class B common stock into one share of TWC common stock, and the 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 “Distribution” and, together with all of the transactions, 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. 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 economic environment 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 TWC’s services that 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, 2010, TWC leased and owned real property housing national operations centers and regional data centers used in its high-speed data services business in Herndon, Virginia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Syracuse, New York; Austin, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Orange County, California; New York, New York; Coudersport, Pennsylvania; and Columbus, Ohio, and TWC also leased and owned locations for its corporate offices in New York, New York and Charlotte, North Carolina as well as numerous business offices, warehouses and properties housing regional 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

 

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the United States. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation Order transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converters boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action, alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the “Cable Act”) against “negative option billing” and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”). Plaintiffs are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys’ fees. On February 23, 2009, the court denied TWC’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment. On October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company’s general ordering process complies with the Cable Act’s “negative option billing” restriction. On October 20, 2010, the FCC requested public comment on this matter. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

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, are seeking, 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 that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. On October 15, 2009, the district court granted with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, terminating the action. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

The Company is also a defendant in two other purported class actions. On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user’s Road Runner service. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. On September 25, 2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in this action, which is pending. On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs are

seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to defend against each of these lawsuits vigorously.

 

On January 17, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mecklenburg County settling Mecklenburg County’s suit against TWE-A/N alleging that TWE-A/N’s predecessor failed to construct an institutional network in 1981 and that TWE-A/N assumed that obligation. This suit had been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in July 2005. The terms of the settlement are not material to the Company.

 

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. Based on motions for summary judgment brought by other defendants, the district court found, in decisions on January 29, 2010 and December 3, 2010, two of the three remaining patents invalid with respect to those defendants. 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. Summary judgment motions are pending relating to the remaining claim. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claim 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 restructuring of TWE in 2003, Time Warner agreed to indemnify the Company 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 Company against such liabilities, TWE remains a named party in certain litigation matters.

 

The costs and other effects of future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in pending 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.

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 18, 2011.

 

 

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 the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “TWC Common Stock”), is the New York Stock Exchange. For quarterly price information for the TWC Common Stock for the two years ended December 31, 2010, see “Quarterly Financial Information” at page 128 herein, which information is incorporated herein by reference. The quarterly price information reflects (i) the special cash dividend that was paid by the Company, (ii) the reclassification of each outstanding share of the Company’s Class A common stock and Class B common stock into one share of TWC Common Stock and (iii) the Company’s 1-for-3 reverse stock split, each effective on March 12, 2009. There were approximately 32,000 holders of record of TWC Common Stock as of February 15, 2011.

 

The Company paid a cash dividend of $0.40 per share of TWC Common Stock in each quarter of 2010, which totaled $576 million during 2010. On January 26, 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors declared an increased quarterly cash dividend of $0.48 per share of TWC Common Stock, payable in cash on March 15, 2011 to stockholders of record on February 28, 2011. 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.

 

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

The following table provides information about the Company’s purchases of equity securities registered by the Company pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, during the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

The selected financial information of TWC for the five years ended December 31, 2010 is set forth at pages 126 through 127 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 37 through 67 herein is incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

The information set forth under the caption “Market Risk Management” at pages 62 through 63 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 68 through 122 and 124 herein are incorporated herein by reference.

 

Quarterly Financial Information set forth at page 128 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 123 and 125 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, 2010 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 2011 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, 2010, about the Company’s outstanding equity compensation awards and shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under the Company’s equity compensation plans.

 

 

 

 

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 Company’s payment of the special cash dividend on March 12, 2009 and its 1-for-3 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 36 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 10.25 through 10.43 and 10.46 through 10.60 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 18, 2011

 

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, 2010, TWC served approximately 14.5 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 26.7 million primary service units.

 

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, 2010, 59.0% of TWC’s residential and commercial customers subscribed to two or more of its primary services, including 25.4% of its customers who subscribed to all three primary services. During 2010, TWC generated approximately $18.0 billion of subscription revenues. TWC also sells advertising to a variety of national, regional and local advertising customers, resulting in advertising revenues of $881 million during 2010.

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

 

Video generates the largest share of TWC’s revenues and, as of December 31, 2010, TWC had approximately 12.3 million residential video subscribers and 165,000 commercial video subscribers. Of the Company’s video subscribers, as of December 31, 2010, 72.1% received digital video signals. As of December 31, 2010, TWC had approximately 9.5 million residential high-speed data subscribers and 334,000 commercial high-speed data subscribers. TWC’s commercial high-speed data services include high-speed data, networking and transport services. As of December 31, 2010, TWC had approximately 4.4 million residential Digital Phone subscribers and 111,000 commercial Digital Phone subscribers.

 

TWC believes it will continue to increase video, high-speed data and Digital Phone revenues for the foreseeable future through the offering of incremental video services (e.g., digital video recorder (“DVR”) service and additional programming tiers), video equipment rentals, price increases and growth in high-speed data and Digital Phone subscribers. However, future growth rates will depend on subscriber and penetration levels, regulation, pricing and the rate of wireless substitution of wireline high-speed data and Digital Phone services, as well as the state of the economy and competition.

 

TWC’s business is affected by the economic environment and, in particular, trends in new home formation, housing vacancy rates, unemployment rates and consumer spending levels. The Company believes that the challenging economic environment since 2008 has negatively affected its financial and subscriber growth.

 

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 including 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 or “over-the-top” phone service. Additionally, technological advances and product innovations have increased and will likely continue to increase the number of alternatives available to TWC’s customers and potential customers, further intensifying competition. The Company believes the more competitive environment has negatively affected the growth of primary service units and average monthly subscription revenues per primary service unit.

 

In 2010, video programming costs and employee costs represented 35.1% and 32.2%, respectively, of the Company’s total operating expenses. Video programming costs 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 the rate of growth in programming costs outpace the rate of growth in video revenues. Additionally, the more competitive environment discussed above may increase TWC’s cost to obtain certain video programming. Employee costs are also expected to continue to increase as a result of many factors, including higher employee medical and compensation expenses and the Company’s investment in its commercial services and other areas of growth.

 

TWC continues to introduce innovative new services to its customers. In the fourth quarter of 2009, TWC began offering a wireless mobile broadband Internet access service in several cities, and, as of December 31, 2010, the Company had 13,000 wireless mobile broadband subscribers. During 2011, the Company expects to invest in other new services, such as an advanced home security service. The Company incurred start up losses of approximately $50 million during 2010 related to wireless mobile broadband Internet access service and expects to incur start up losses of approximately $75 million during 2011 in connection with the continued deployment of wireless mobile broadband Internet access service and its investments in advanced home security service and other new services.

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

 

Consistent with the Company’s overall balance sheet management strategy, in March 2010, TWC began paying a quarterly cash dividend of $0.40 per share of TWC common stock to TWC stockholders, which totaled $576 million during 2010. On January 26, 2011, TWC’s Board of Directors declared an increased quarterly cash dividend of $0.48 per share of TWC common stock. In addition to paying the quarterly dividend, on October 29, 2010, TWC’s Board of Directors authorized a $4.0 billion common stock repurchase program (the “Stock Repurchase Program”). Purchases under the Stock Repurchase Program may be made from time to time on the open market and in privately negotiated transactions. The size and timing of the Company’s purchases under the Stock Repurchase Program are based on a number of factors, including price and business and market conditions. From the program’s inception through December 31, 2010, the Company repurchased 8.0 million shares of TWC common stock for $515 million, including 0.6 million shares repurchased for $43 million that settled in January 2011. From the program’s inception through February 15, 2011, the Company repurchased 13.9 million shares of TWC common stock for $916 million.

 

Recent Developments

 

NaviSite Acquisition

 

On February 1, 2011, TWC entered into an agreement to acquire NaviSite, Inc. (“NaviSite”) for $5.50 per share of NaviSite common stock in cash, or a total equity value of approximately $230 million. As of February 1, 2011, NaviSite had approximately $50 million of debt and approximately $35 million of preferred equity. NaviSite, which provides enterprise-class hosting, managed application, messaging and cloud services, had revenues of $126 million for its fiscal year ended July 31, 2010. NaviSite common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market. The transaction, which is subject to NaviSite stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011. On February 8, 2011, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported class of NaviSite stockholders against NaviSite, certain of its officers and directors and TWC alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and that the consideration to be paid in connection with the transaction is inadequate. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the transaction and monetary damages. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.

 

2010 Bond Offering and $4.0 Billion Revolving Credit Facility

 

On November 15, 2010, the Company issued $1.9 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes and debentures under a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 in a public offering (the “2010 Bond Offering”). The 2010 Bond Offering consisted of $700 million principal amount of 4.125% notes due 2021 and $1.2 billion principal amount of 5.875% debentures due 2040. TWC’s obligations under the debt securities issued in the 2010 Bond Offering are guaranteed by its subsidiaries, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (“TWE”) and TW NY Cable Holding Inc. (“TW NY”). The Company used a portion of the net proceeds from the 2010 Bond Offering for general corporate purposes, including the repurchase of its common stock under the Stock Repurchase Program. See Note 9 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further details regarding the notes and debentures issued in the 2010 Bond Offering.

 

On November 3, 2010, the Company entered into a credit agreement for a $4.0 billion senior unsecured three-year revolving credit facility maturing in November 2013 (the “$4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility”), and the Company’s $5.875 billion senior unsecured five-year revolving credit facility (the “$5.875 billion Revolving Credit Facility”), scheduled to mature in February 2011, was terminated. The Company’s obligations under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility are guaranteed by TWE and TW NY. Borrowings under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility bear interest at a rate based on the credit rating of TWC, which rate was LIBOR plus 1.25% per annum at December 31, 2010. In addition, TWC is required to pay a facility fee on the aggregate commitments under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility at a rate determined by the credit rating of TWC, which rate was 0.25% per annum at December 31, 2010. TWC may also incur an additional usage fee of 0.25% per annum on the outstanding loans and other extensions of credit under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility if and when such amounts exceed 25% of the aggregate commitments thereunder. The $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility provides same-day funding capability, and a portion of the aggregate commitments, not to exceed $500 million at any time, may be used for the issuance of letters of credit.

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

 

The $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility contains conditions, covenants, representations and warranties and events of default (with customary grace periods, as applicable) substantially similar to the conditions, covenants, representations and warranties and events of default that were contained in the Company’s $5.875 billion Revolving Credit Facility, including a maximum leverage ratio covenant of 5.0 times TWC’s consolidated EBITDA. The terms and related financial metrics associated with the leverage ratio are defined in the agreement. The $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility does not contain any: credit ratings-based defaults or covenants; ongoing covenants or representations specifically relating to a material adverse change in TWC’s financial condition or results of operations; or borrowing restrictions due to material adverse changes in the Company’s business or market disruption. Borrowings under the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility may be used for general corporate purposes, and unused credit is available to support borrowings under the Company’s unsecured commercial paper program, which was reduced from $6.0 billion to $4.0 billion in connection with the entry into the $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility.

 

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 service—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 movie, sports and Spanish-language tiers. Video revenues also include related equipment rental charges, installation charges and fees collected on behalf of local franchising authorities and the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”). Additionally, video revenues include revenues from premium channels, transactional video-on-demand (e.g., events and movies) and DVR service. 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 residential and commercial subscriber fees for the Company’s high-speed data and wireless mobile broadband services, along with related high-speed data 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^® high-speed data service (“Road Runner”) 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 $131 million, $127 million and $139 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In addition, high-speed data revenues include fees received from third-party internet service providers (e.g., Earthlink) whose on-line services are provided to some of TWC’s customers. Commercial high-speed data revenues include amounts generated by the sale of commercial networking and transport services. These services include point-to-point transport services offered to wireless telephone providers (i.e., cell tower backhaul), Internet service providers and competitive carriers on a wholesale basis, as well as Metro Ethernet service.

 

Voice revenues include subscriber fees from residential and commercial Digital Phone subscribers, along with related installation charges.

 

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, as well as revenues from advertising inventory sold on behalf of other video service providers. Nearly all Advertising revenues are derived from advertising placed on video services.

 

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; voice

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

 

network costs; wireless mobile broadband service 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, bad debt expense, billing system charges, non-plant repair and maintenance costs and other administrative overhead costs.

 

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). Management believes that Free Cash Flow is 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, repurchase common stock and make strategic investments. Performance measures derived from OIBDA are also used in the Company’s annual incentive compensation programs. In addition, 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 (loss) attributable to TWC shareholders, 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 and 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 shareholders. 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 shareholders 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.

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

 

Basis of Presentation

 

Separation from Time Warner

 

On March 12, 2009, TWC completed its separation (the “Separation”) from Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”), which, prior to the Separation, 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. As a result of the Separation, Time Warner no longer has an ownership interest in TWC or TW NY. Refer to Note 5 for additional information regarding the Separation.

 

Reclassifications

 

Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior years’ financial information to conform to the current year presentation.

 

Recent Accounting Standards

 

See Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for accounting standards adopted in 2010 and recently issued accounting standards not yet adopted.

 

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

2010 vs. 2009

 

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)

 

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

 

 

 

 

Total Subscription revenues increased 4.8% as a result of increases in residential and commercial video, high-speed data and voice revenues. Residential and commercial subscription revenues were as follows (in millions):

 

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

 

The increase in video revenues was primarily due to increases in average revenues per subscriber (due to price increases, improved subscriber mix and increased DVR service revenues), partially offset by a decrease in residential video subscribers. The major components of video revenues were as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

High-speed data revenues increased primarily due to growth in residential and commercial high-speed data subscribers and, to a lesser extent, increases in average revenues per subscriber (due to both price increases and improved subscriber mix) and other commercial service revenues (e.g., cell tower backhaul and Metro Ethernet revenues).

 

The increase in voice revenues was due to growth in residential and commercial Digital Phone subscribers, partially offset by a decrease in average revenues per subscriber.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Advertising revenues increased primarily due to higher revenues from regional, local and, to a lesser extent, national businesses. Advertising revenues also increased as a result of growth in political advertising revenues, which totaled $74 million and $20 million in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The Company expects that advertising revenues will increase in 2011 compared to 2010 as a result of higher revenues from regional, local and national businesses and growth in revenues from advertising inventory sold on behalf of other video service providers, partially offset by a significant decrease in political advertising revenues.

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

 

Costs of revenues.  The major components of costs of revenues were as follows (in millions, except per subscriber data):

 

 

 

Costs of revenues increased 4.5% primarily related to increases in video programming, voice and other direct operating costs.

 

The increase in video programming costs was primarily due to contractual rate increases and incremental costs associated with retransmission of certain local broadcast stations, partially offset by a decline in video subscribers. Additionally, video programming costs in 2010 and 2009 were reduced by approximately $25 million and $5 million, respectively, due to changes in cost estimates for programming services carried without a contract, reversals of previously accrued programming audit reserves and certain contract settlements. The Company expects the rate of growth in total video programming costs in 2011 to be comparable to that of 2010.

 

Employee costs increased slightly primarily as a result of higher costs associated with commercial service-related employees, partially offset by a decline in residential service-related employee costs, primarily resulting from decreased activity, and a decrease in pension expense.

 

Voice costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of voice services, including network connectivity costs. Voice costs for 2010 increased primarily due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company began replacing Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”) as the provider of Digital Phone transport, switching and interconnection services, a process that is expected to continue through the first quarter of 2014. As a result, the Company expects average voice costs per voice subscriber to decrease in 2011 compared to 2010.

 

Other direct operating costs increased as a result of increases in a number of categories, including costs associated with advertising inventory sold on behalf of other video service providers, wireless mobile broadband service costs, computer software and maintenance costs and fuel expense.

 

Also, during the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company reclassified as other direct operating costs approximately $20 million that was previously recorded as depreciation expense. Approximately $15 million of this amount relates to prior quarters in 2010. The Company has not made the comparable reclassification to prior year amounts and management does not believe this reclassification is material to the current year or prior year results.

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

 

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

 

 

 

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased primarily as a result of increases in employee costs (primarily due to higher headcount and compensation, as well as $12 million of executive severance costs in the fourth quarter of 2010), marketing expense and consulting and professional fees, partially offset by a decrease in bad debt expense primarily due to improvements in collection efforts during 2010. Bad debt expense for the fourth quarter of 2010 increased compared to 2009 as the fourth quarter of 2009 included a benefit from the reduction in the allowance for doubtful accounts to reflect the quality of residential receivables as of the end of 2009, which benefited both the fourth quarter and full year 2009. Additionally, casualty insurance expense in 2009 included a benefit of approximately $11 million due to changes in estimates of previously established casualty insurance accruals.

 

Restructuring costs. The results for 2010 and 2009 include restructuring costs of $52 million and $81 million, respectively, primarily related to headcount reductions of approximately 900 and 1,300 in 2010 and 2009, respectively, and other exit costs, including the termination of a facility lease that occurred during the second quarter of 2010. The Company expects to incur additional restructuring costs during 2011.

 

Reconciliation of OIBDA to Operating Income. The following table reconciles OIBDA to Operating Income. In addition, the table provides the components from Operating Income to net income attributable to TWC shareholders for purposes of the discussions that follow (in millions):

 

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

 

OIBDA. OIBDA increased principally as a result of revenue growth, partially offset by higher costs of revenues and selling, general and administrative expenses, as discussed above.

 

Depreciation. The increase in depreciation expense was primarily associated with continued investments in customer premise equipment, scalable infrastructure and line extensions occurring during or subsequent to 2009. As discussed above, depreciation expense in 2010 benefited from a fourth-quarter 2010 reclassification of approximately $20 million.

 

Amortization. The decrease in amortization expense in 2010 was primarily due to approximately $880 million of customer relationships acquired in the July 31, 2006 transactions with Adelphia Communications Corporation and Comcast Corporation (the “Adelphia/Comcast Transactions”) that were fully amortized as of July 31, 2010. Amortization expense in 2009 included a benefit of approximately $13 million recorded to reduce excess amortization recorded in prior years.

 

As of December 31, 2010, approximately $70 million of customer relationships that the Company acquired as a result of the 2007 dissolution of Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P. (“TKCCP”) were fully amortized. Based on the remaining carrying value of intangible assets subject to amortization as of December 31, 2010, amortization expense is expected to be approximately $24 million in 2011.

 

Operating Income. Operating Income increased primarily due to the increase in OIBDA and the decrease in amortization expense, partially offset by the increase in depreciation expense, as discussed above.

 

Interest expense, net. Interest expense, net, increased primarily due to higher average debt outstanding during 2010 as compared to 2009. Interest expense, net, for 2009 included $13 million of debt issuance costs primarily related to upfront loan fees on a 364-day senior unsecured term loan facility entered into in 2008 in connection with the Separation (the “2008 Bridge Facility”), which were recognized as expense when the facility was repaid and terminated following the Company’s public debt issuance in March 2009.

 

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

 

 

 

Income tax provision.  In 2010 and 2009, the Company recorded income tax provisions of $883 million and $820 million, respectively. The effective tax rates were 40.2% and 42.9% for 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

The income tax provision and the effective tax rate for 2009 were impacted by 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, which was recorded in the first quarter of 2009. On October 19, 2010, legislation was enacted in California that reversed the changes in methodology of California income tax apportionment included in the 2009 California state

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

 

budget, which resulted in a decrease in the Company’s state deferred tax liabilities and a corresponding noncash tax benefit of $40 million, which was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2010.

 

The income tax provision and the effective tax rates for 2010 also benefited from an adjustment of $29 million to the Company’s valuation allowance for deferred tax assets associated with an equity-method investment.

 

The income tax provision and the effective tax rate for 2010 were also impacted by a net noncash charge of $68 million related to the reversal of previously recognized deferred income tax benefits primarily as a result of the expiration, on March 12, 2010, of vested Time Warner stock options held by TWC employees. As a result of the Separation on March 12, 2009, TWC employees who held stock options under Time Warner equity plans were treated as if their employment with Time Warner had been terminated without cause at the time of the Separation. In most cases, this treatment resulted in shortened exercise periods, generally one year from the date of Separation, for vested Time Warner stock options held by TWC employees.

 

Vested Time Warner stock options held primarily by certain retirement-eligible TWC employees (pursuant to the terms of the award agreements) have exercise periods of up to five years from the date of the Separation. As such, the Company estimates that it may incur additional noncash income tax expense of up to approximately $90 million through March 2014 upon the exercise or expiration of these stock options. Up to approximately $50 million of such expense is expected to be incurred in the first quarter of 2011 and may be partially reduced during 2011 as TWC equity awards vest and are exercised. These estimates and the timing of such charges are dependent on a number of variables related to TWC and Time Warner equity awards, including the respective stock prices and the timing of the exercise or expiration of stock options and restricted stock units.

 

Absent the impacts of the California tax law changes, valuation allowance adjustment and the reversal of previously recognized deferred income tax benefits primarily resulting from the expiration of vested Time Warner stock options, the effective tax rates would have been 40.3% and 40.9% for 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests decreased principally due to changes in the ownership structure of the Company that occurred during the first quarter of 2009 in connection with the Separation.

 

Net income attributable to TWC shareholders and net income per common share attributable to TWC common shareholders. Net income attributable to TWC shareholders and net income per common share attributable to TWC common shareholders were as follows for 2010 and 2009 (in millions, except per share data):

 

 

Net income attributable to TWC shareholders and net income per common share attributable to TWC common shareholders increased primarily due to an increase in Operating Income, which was partially offset by increases in income tax provision and interest expense, net, each as discussed above.

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

 

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):

 

 

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)

 

Total Subscription revenues increased 5.3% as a result of increases in residential and commercial video, high-speed data and voice revenues. Residential and commercial subscription revenues were as follows (in millions):

 

 

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 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. 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.

 

The increase in voice revenues was due to growth in Digital Phone subscribers, partially offset by a decrease in average revenues per subscriber.

 

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 revenues from national, regional and local businesses and political advertising revenues.

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

 

Costs of revenues. The major components of costs of revenues were as follows (in millions, except per subscriber data):

 

 

 

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.

 

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 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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

OIBDA. As discussed above, in 2008, OIBDA was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems. Excluding these items, OIBDA increased principally as a result of revenue growth, partially offset by higher costs of revenues and restructuring costs, each as discussed above. Additionally, OIBDA 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 Adelphia/Comcast Transactions that was fully depreciated as of July 31, 2008.

 

Amortization expense. Amortization expense in 2009 benefited from an approximate $13 million adjustment to reduce excess amortization recorded in prior years.

 

Operating Income (Loss). As discussed above, in 2008, Operating Loss was impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems. Excluding these items, Operating Income increased primarily due to the increase in OIBDA, as discussed above.

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

 

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 upfront loan fees on the 2008 Bridge Facility, which were recognized as expense when the facility was repaid and terminated following the Company’s public debt issuance in March 2009. 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 Company’s public debt issuances in June 2008 and November 2008 (the “2008 Bond Offerings”).

 

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

 

 

 

Income tax benefit (provision). 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 that occurred during the first quarter of 2009 in connection with the Separation.

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

 

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

 

 

NM—Not meaningful.

 

As discussed above, in 2008, net loss attributable to TWC shareholders and net loss per common share attributable to TWC common shareholders were impacted by the impairment of cable franchise rights and the loss on sale of cable systems. Excluding these items, net income attributable to TWC shareholders and net income per common share attributable to TWC common shareholders 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.

 

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, including quarterly dividend payments and common stock repurchases. 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.

 

The Company generally invests its cash and equivalents in a combination of money market, government and treasury funds, as well as other similar instruments, in accordance with the Company’s investment policy of diversifying its investments and limiting the amount of its investments in a single entity or fund. As of December 31, 2010, nearly all of the Company’s cash and equivalents was invested in money market funds and certificates of deposit (“CD”), with no more than 15% invested in any one fund or CD.

 

TWC’s unused committed financial capacity was $6.891 billion as of December 31, 2010, reflecting $3.047 billion of cash and equivalents and $3.844 billion of available borrowing capacity under the Company’s $4.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility.

 

Current Financial Condition

 

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had $23.121 billion of debt, $3.047 billion of cash and equivalents (net debt of $20.074 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 $9.210 billion of total TWC shareholders’ equity. 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), $300 million of TW NY Cable Preferred Membership Units and $8.685 billion of total TWC shareholders’ equity.

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

 

The following table shows the significant items contributing to the change in net debt from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010 (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 October 29, 2010, TWC’s Board of Directors authorized the Stock Repurchase Program. From the program’s inception through February 15, 2011, the Company repurchased 13.9 million shares of TWC common stock for $916 million.

 

On January 26, 2011, TWC’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.48 per share of TWC common stock, payable in cash on March 15, 2011 to stockholders of record at the close of business on February 28, 2011.

 

As discussed above, on February 1, 2011, TWC entered into an agreement to acquire NaviSite for $5.50 per share of NaviSite common stock in cash, or a total equity value of approximately $230 million. As of February 1, 2011, NaviSite had approximately $50 million of debt and approximately $35 million of preferred equity. The transaction, which is subject to NaviSite stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011.

 

Cash Flows

 

Cash and equivalents increased $1.999 billion and $5.217 billion in 2010 and 2008, respectively, and decreased $4.401 billion in 2009. 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):