Table of Contents

​

​

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, 2021

OR

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

For the transition period from  to

Commission File Number 001-36713

LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

​

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (720) 875-5700

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 ☒  No ☐

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 ☐ No ☒

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 ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company," and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management's assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of Liberty Broadband Corporation computed by reference to the last sales price of such stock, as of the closing of trading on June 30, 2021, was $29.6 billion.

The number of outstanding shares of Liberty Broadband Corporation common stock as of January 31, 2022 was:

​

​

Documents Incorporated by Reference

The Registrant's definitive proxy statement for its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is hereby incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

Table of Contents

​

LIBERTY BROADBAND

CORPORATION

2021 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10‑K

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Table of Contents

PART I.

Item 1. Business.

General Development of Business

Liberty Broadband Corporation (“Liberty Broadband,” “the Company,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) is primarily comprised of GCI Holdings, LLC (“GCI Holdings”) (as of December 18, 2020), a wholly owned subsidiary, and an equity method investment in Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”).

During May 2014, the board of directors of Liberty Media Corporation (for accounting purposes a related party of the Company) and its subsidiaries (“Liberty”) authorized management to pursue a plan to spin-off to its stockholders common stock of a wholly-owned subsidiary, Liberty Broadband, and to distribute subscription rights to acquire shares of Liberty Broadband’s common stock (the “Broadband Spin-Off”). Liberty Broadband was formed in 2014 as a Delaware corporation.

On December 18, 2020, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 6, 2020, entered into by GCI Liberty, Inc. (“GCI Liberty”), Liberty Broadband, Grizzly Merger Sub 1, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband (“Merger LLC”), and Grizzly Merger Sub 2, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Merger LLC (“Merger Sub”), Merger Sub merged with and into GCI Liberty (the “First Merger”), with GCI Liberty surviving the First Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband (the “Surviving Corporation”), and immediately following the First Merger, GCI Liberty (as the Surviving Corporation in the First Merger) merged with and into Merger LLC (the “Upstream Merger”, and together with the First Merger, the “Combination”), with Merger LLC surviving the Upstream Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband. Prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty consisted of a wholly owned subsidiary, GCI Holdings, an equity method investment in Liberty Broadband, an investment in Charter and other assets and liabilities.

As a result of the Combination, each holder of a share of Series A common stock and Series B common stock of GCI Liberty received 0.58 of a share of Series C common stock and Series B common stock, respectively, of Liberty Broadband. Additionally, each holder of a share of Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of GCI Liberty received one share of newly issued Liberty Broadband Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, which has substantially identical terms to GCI Liberty’s former Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, including a mandatory redemption date of March 9, 2039. Cash was paid in lieu of issuing fractional shares of Liberty Broadband stock in the Combination. No shares of Liberty Broadband stock were issued with respect to shares of GCI Liberty capital stock held by (i) GCI Liberty as treasury stock, (ii) any of GCI Liberty’s wholly owned subsidiaries or (iii) Liberty Broadband or its wholly owned subsidiaries.

In connection with the Broadband Spin-Off, Liberty and Liberty Broadband entered into certain agreements in order to govern certain of the ongoing relationships between the two companies after the Broadband Spin-Off and to provide for an orderly transition, including a services agreement and a facilities sharing agreement. Additionally, in connection with a prior transaction, GCI Liberty and Qurate Retail, Inc. (“Qurate Retail”) (for accounting purposes a related party of the Company) entered into a tax sharing agreement, which was assumed by Liberty Broadband as a result of the Combination. The tax sharing agreement provides for the allocation and indemnification of tax liabilities and benefits between Qurate Retail and Liberty Broadband and other agreements related to tax matters. 

Pursuant to the services agreement, Liberty provides Liberty Broadband with general and administrative services including legal, tax, accounting, treasury and investor relations support. In December 2019, the Company entered into an amendment to the services agreement with Liberty in connection with Liberty’s entry into a new employment arrangement with Gregory B. Maffei, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer. Under the amended services agreement, components of his compensation would either be paid directly to him by each of the Company, Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. (“TripCo”), GCI Liberty, and Qurate Retail (collectively, the “Service Companies”) or reimbursed to Liberty, in each case, based on allocations among Liberty and the Service Companies set forth in the amended services agreement. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the allocation percentage for Liberty Broadband was 37% and 18%, respectively. Following the Combination, GCI Liberty no longer participates in the services agreement arrangement. The amended services agreement between Liberty and Mr. Maffei provides for a five year employment term which began on January 1, 2020 and ends December 31, 2024, with an aggregate annual base salary of $3 million (with no contracted increase), an aggregate one-time cash commitment bonus of $5 million (paid in December 2019), an aggregate annual target cash performance bonus of $17 million, aggregate annual equity awards of approximately $18 million and aggregate equity awards granted in connection with his entry into his new agreement

Table of Contents

of $90 million (the “upfront awards”). A portion of the grants made to our CEO in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 related to our Company’s allocable portion of these upfront awards.

Under the facilities sharing agreement, Liberty Broadband shares office space with Liberty and related amenities at Liberty’s corporate headquarters. Liberty Broadband will reimburse Liberty for direct, out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Liberty in providing these services and for costs that will be negotiated semi-annually.

In December 2019, Chinese officials reported a novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak. COVID-19 has since spread through China and internationally. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization assessed COVID-19 as a global pandemic, causing many countries throughout the world to take aggressive actions, including imposing travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders, closing public attractions and restaurants, and mandating social distancing practices, which has caused a significant disruption to most sectors of the economy.

* * * * *

Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding business, product and marketing strategies; new service and product offerings; revenue growth; future expenses; anticipated changes to regulations; the recognition of deferred revenue; the recoverability of our goodwill and other long-lived assets; competition; the performance, results of operations and cash flows of our equity affiliate, Charter; projected sources and uses of cash; renewal of licenses; the effects of regulatory developments; the impact of COVID-19; the Rural Healthcare Program; indebtedness and the anticipated impact of certain contingent liabilities related to legal and tax proceedings and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. In particular, statements under Item 1. "Business," Item 1A. "Risk Factors," Item 2. "Properties," Item 7. "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and Item 7A. "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk" contain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements inherently involve many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in these statements. Where, in any forward-looking statement, we express an expectation or belief as to future results or events, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis, but such statements necessarily involve risks and uncertainties and there can be no assurance that the expectation or belief will result or be achieved or accomplished. The following include some but not all of the factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated:

Table of Contents

These forward-looking statements and such risks, uncertainties and other factors speak only as of the date of this Annual Report, and we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to disseminate any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained herein, to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto, or any other change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based. When considering such forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the factors described in Item 1A, "Risk Factors" and other cautionary statements contained in this Annual Report. Such risk factors and statements describe circumstances which could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

This Annual Report includes information concerning Charter, a public company that files reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Information in this Annual Report concerning Charter has been derived from the reports and other information filed by it with the SEC. If you would like further information about Charter, the reports and other information it files with the SEC can be accessed on the Internet website maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov. Those reports and other information are not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report.

Description of Business

The following table identifies the Company’s more significant subsidiaries and minority investments:

Consolidated Subsidiaries

GCI Holdings

Equity Method Investments

Charter Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHTR)

GCI Holdings, LLC

GCI Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, provides a full range of wireless, data, video, voice, and managed services to residential customers, businesses, governmental entities, and educational and medical institutions primarily in Alaska under the GCI brand. Due to the unique nature of the markets it serves, including harsh winter weather and remote geographies, its customers rely extensively on its systems to meet their communication and entertainment needs.

Since its founding in 1979 as a competitive long distance provider, GCI Holdings has consistently expanded its product portfolio and facilities to become the leading integrated communication services provider in markets it serves. Its facilities include

Table of Contents

redundant and geographically diverse digital undersea fiber optic cable systems linking its Alaska terrestrial networks to the networks of other carriers in the lower 48 contiguous states and a statewide wireless network.

Throughout its history, GCI Holdings has successfully added and expects to continue to add new products to its product portfolio. GCI Holdings has a demonstrated history of new product evaluation, development and deployment for its customers, and it continues to assess revenue-enhancing opportunities that create value for its customers. Where feasible and where economic analysis supports geographic expansion of its network coverage, it is currently pursuing or expects to pursue opportunities to increase the scale of its facilities, enhance its ability to serve existing customers’ needs and attract new customers. Additionally, due to the unique market conditions in Alaska, GCI Holdings, and in some cases its customers, participate in several federally (and to a lesser extent locally) subsidized programs designed to financially support the implementation and purchase of telecommunications services in high cost areas. With these programs, GCI Holdings has been able to expand its network into previously undeveloped areas of Alaska and offer comprehensive communications services in many rural parts of the state where it would not otherwise be able to construct facilities within appropriate return-on-investment requirements.

GCI Holdings’ revenue was comprised of the following:

​

GCI Holdings sells new and enhanced services and products to its existing customer base to achieve increased revenue and penetration of its services. Through close coordination of its customer service and sales and marketing efforts, its customer service representatives suggest to its customers other services they can purchase or enhanced versions of services they already purchase. Many calls into the customer service centers or visits into one of the retail stores result in sales of additional services and products.

GCI Holdings has empowered its customer service representatives to handle most service issues and questions on a single call. GCI Holdings prioritizes its customer services to expedite handling of its most valuable customers’ issues, particularly for its largest commercial customers. GCI Holdings believes its integrated approach to customer service, including service set-up, programming various network databases with the customer’s information, installation, and ongoing service, allows it to provide a customer experience that fosters customer loyalty.

GCI Holdings continues to expand and evolve its integrated network for the delivery of its services. GCI Holdings’ bundled strategy and integrated approach to serving customers creates efficiencies of scale and maximizes network utilization. By offering multiple services, GCI Holdings is better able to leverage its network assets and increase returns on its invested capital. GCI Holdings periodically evaluates its network assets and continually monitors technological developments that it can potentially deploy to increase network efficiency and performance.

GCI Holdings holds a number of federally registered service marks used by its business. It owns two utility patents issued in 2017 pertaining to device diagnostics and network connectivity. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act"), gives the FCC the authority to license and regulate the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for radio communications. GCI Holdings holds licenses for its satellite and microwave transmission facilities for provision of long-distance services. GCI Holdings holds various licenses for wireless spectrum. These licenses may be revoked and license renewal applications may be denied for cause. However, GCI Holdings expects these licenses to be renewed in due course when, at the end of the license period, a renewal application will be filed.

GCI Holdings has licenses for earth stations that are generally licensed for fifteen years. The FCC also issues a single blanket license for a large number of earth stations operating in specific frequency bands. Its operations may require additional licenses in the future.

Table of Contents

GCI Holdings is certified through the Regulatory Commission of Alaska ("RCA") to provide local, long distance, and video service by Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”). These CPCNs are nonexclusive certificates defining each authorized service area. Although CPCNs have no stated expiration date, they may be revoked due to cause.

Network Services Facilities. GCI Holdings operates an advanced, diverse communications network providing data, mobile, video, voice, and managed services to consumer, business, government, and carrier customers throughout Alaska.

GCI Holdings serves urban and rural Alaska utilizing a combination of fiber, microwave, and satellite technologies. GCI Holdings is currently expanding its fiber network to the Aleutian Chain and expects to launch urban-level service in the region. GCI Holdings’ extensive use of microwave and satellite technologies also enables it to deliver connectivity to some of Alaska’s most-remote communities.

GCI Holdings owns and operates a statewide wireless network providing voice and data services to Alaskans. Its statewide wireless network provides fifth generation (“5G”) data service, 4G Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) voice and data service, EVDO, 3G UMTS/HSPA+, 2G CDMA, and 2G GSM/EDGE service. It continues to expand and upgrade these services to provide a modern network for Alaska.

GCI Holdings’ dedicated internet access and suite of managed services, including voice, WiFi, firewall, detection and response operate on the highest-capacity backbone in Alaska, with numerous peering partners in Seattle and Portland. The availability and quality of service, as well as statistical information on traffic loading, are continuously monitored for quality assurance. The management platform has the capability to remotely access network elements and service end-points, permitting changes in configuration without the need to physically be at the service end-point. This management platform allows GCI Holdings to offer network monitoring and management services to businesses and governmental entities.

GCI Holdings’ video businesses are located throughout Alaska and serve the majority of the population. Its facilities include hybrid-fiber-coax plant and head-end distribution equipment. The majority of its locations on the fiber routes are served from head-end distribution equipment in Anchorage. All of its cable systems are completely digital. In preparation for GCI Holdings’ progression to 10 gigabit internet, it is transitioning from traditional delivery methods to an Internet Protocol ("IP") video solution.

Charter Communications, Inc.

Introduction

Charter is a leading broadband connectivity company and cable operator serving more than 32 million customers in 41 states through its Spectrum brand. Over an advanced high-capacity, two-way telecommunications network, Charter offers a full range of state-of-the-art residential and business services including Spectrum Internet^®, TV, Mobile and Voice. For small and medium-sized companies, Spectrum Business^® delivers the same suite of broadband products and services coupled with special features and applications to enhance productivity, while for larger businesses and government entities, Spectrum Enterprise provides highly customized, fiber-based solutions. Spectrum Reach^® delivers tailored advertising and production for the modern media landscape. Charter also distributes award-winning news coverage, sports and high-quality original programming to its customers through Spectrum Networks and Spectrum Originals.

Charter’s network, which it owns and operates, passes over 54 million households and small and medium businesses (“SMBs”) across the United States. Charter’s core strategy is to use its network to deliver high quality products at competitive prices, combined with outstanding customer service. This strategy, combined with simple, easy to understand pricing and packaging, is central to Charter’s goal of growing its customer base while selling more of its core connectivity services, which include both fixed and mobile Internet, video and voice services, to each customer. Charter executes this strategy by managing its operations in a consumer-friendly, efficient and cost-effective manner.

The capability and functionality of Charter’s network continues to grow in a number of areas, especially with respect to wireless connectivity. Charter’s Internet service offers consumers the ability to wirelessly connect to its network using WiFi technology. Charter estimates that over 400 million devices are wirelessly connected to its network through WiFi. In addition, Charter extends Internet connectivity to its customers beyond the home via its Spectrum Mobile™ product through Charter’s mobile virtual network operator (“MVNO”) partnership agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon"). Charter

Table of Contents

intends to use Citizens Broadband Radio Service (“CBRS”) Priority Access Licenses (“PALs”) that Charter purchased in 2020, along with unlicensed CBRS spectrum, to build its own 5G mobile data-only network on its existing infrastructure in targeted geographies where there is high outdoor cellular traffic volume. This effort, in combination with its expanding WiFi network and continued 5G enhancements within the MVNO partnership agreement, should position Charter’s mobile product for continued customer experience and cost structure improvements.

Products and Services

Charter offers its customers subscription-based Internet services, video services, and mobile and voice services. Charter’s services are offered to residential and commercial customers on a subscription basis, with prices and related charges based on the types of service selected, whether the services are sold as a “bundle” or on an individual basis, and based on the equipment necessary to receive Charter’s services. Bundled services are available to substantially all of Charter’s passings, and approximately 53% of Charter’s residential customers subscribe to a bundle of services, including some combination of Charter’s Internet, video and/or voice products.

Table of Contents

The following table from Charter’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 summarizes Charter’s customer statistics for Internet, video, voice and mobile as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 (in thousands except per customer data and footnotes).

Table of Contents

Residential Services

Connectivity Services

Charter provides its customers with a suite of connectivity services including fixed Internet, WiFi and mobile internet which when bundled together provides Charter’s customers with a differentiated Internet connectivity experience while saving consumers and businesses money.

Charter’s standard entry level fixed Internet download speed is at least 200 megabits per second (“Mbps”) in 85% of its footprint and 100 Mbps across the remainder of its footprint, which among other things, allows several people within a single household to stream high definition (“HD”) video content while simultaneously using its Internet service for other purposes. Additionally, leveraging DOCSIS 3.1 technology, Charter offers Spectrum Internet Gig speed service (Internet speeds up to 1 gigabit per second (“Gbps”)) across its footprint.

Charter also offers an in-home WiFi product that provides its Internet customers with high performance wireless routers and a managed WiFi service to maximize their fixed wireless Internet experience. During 2021, Charter completed its roll out of the Advanced Home WiFi (“AHW”) service which is now available across nearly all of its residential footprint along with the deployment of WiFi 6 routers capable of delivering speeds over 1 Gbps. With AHW, customers enjoy a cloud-optimized WiFi connection and have the ability to view and control their WiFi network through the Spectrum application (“My Spectrum App”). The service enables parental control schedules to be set for children’s devices or limit access entirely to unknown devices attempting to access the network. Customers also have the option to add Spectrum WiFi pods to AHW. WiFi pods are small, discreet and powerful access points that plug into electrical outlets in the home, providing broader and more consistent WiFi coverage. In 2022, Charter will begin rolling out Spectrum Security Shield across the residential footprint which protects all devices in the home using network-based security. This free security suite provides end point protection to computers in the home, enabling protection against computer viruses, spyware and threats from malicious actors across the Internet.

In 2021, Charter brought the capabilities of the AHW service to MDUs as Advanced Community WiFi (“ACW”). With ACW, tenants will receive the same visibility and control over their apartment’s WiFi networks through the My Spectrum App, while building managers will be able to see and manage the entire building’s network through a purpose-built property service portal.  

The Spectrum Mobile service is offered to customers subscribing to Charter’s fixed Internet service, and runs on Verizon’s mobile network, combined with Spectrum WiFi. Charter offers nationwide 5G service at no incremental cost to its mobile customers enabling them to stream content several times faster and reducing latency when connecting to apps or webpages where 5G coverage exists. In addition, Charter continues to focus on improving the customer experience and integrating its mobile and fixed Internet products, providing greater WiFi access, speeds and performance using more than 500,000 of its out of home WiFi access points across its footprint combined with over 20 million out of home WiFi access points of its industry partners providing near nationwide coverage.

Charter provides wireline voice communications services using voice over Internet protocol ("VoIP") technology to transmit digital voice signals over its network. Charter’s voice services include unlimited local and long distance calling to the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico, voicemail, call waiting, caller ID, call forwarding and other features and offers international calling either by the minute, or through packages of minutes per month. For customers that subscribe to both Charter’s voice and video offerings, caller ID on TV is also available in most areas. In early 2021, Charter launched Call Guard, a new advanced caller ID and robocall blocking solution, for its residential and SMB voice customers. Call Guard reduces

Table of Contents

customer frustration and improves security by blocking malicious calls while ensuring customers continue to receive the legitimate automated calls they need from schools or healthcare providers.

Video Services

Charter provides its customers with a choice of video programming services on a variety of platforms including through a digital set-top box or an IP device. Video customers have access to a variety of programming packages with over 375 channels of in home and approximately 350 channels out of home allowing its customers to access the programming they want, when they want it, on any device. Charter’s video customers also have access to programmer authenticated applications such as Fox Now, Showtime and ESPN and direct to consumer applications such as Netflix, YouTube and HBO Max on certain set-top boxes. Charter’s video service also includes access to an interactive programming guide with parental controls and in virtually all of its footprint, video on demand (“VOD”) or pay-per-view services. VOD service allows customers to select from approximately 80,000 titles at any time including original content which is exclusive for a period of time through Spectrum Originals such as Joe Pickett and Temple. VOD programming options may be accessed at no additional cost if the content is associated with a customer’s linear subscription, or for a fee on a transactional basis. VOD services are also offered on a subscription basis included in a digital tier premium channel subscription or for a monthly fee. Pay-per-view channels allow customers to pay on a per-event basis to view a single showing of a one-time special sporting event, music concert, or similar event on a commercial-free basis. Charter also offers digital video recorder (“DVR”) service that enables customers to digitally record programming and to pause and rewind live programming on set-top boxes and cloud DVR service, which allows customers to schedule, record and watch their favorite programming anytime from connected IP devices as well as SpectrumTV.com.

Customers are increasingly accessing their subscription video content through Charter’s highly rated Spectrum TV^® application via connected IP devices via its IP network. Access to the Spectrum TV application is included in all Spectrum TV video plans and allows users to stream content across a growing number of platforms as well as accessing their full TV lineup, watching on demand content and the ability to program their DVR from anywhere. Customers are also able to purchase their video services within the Spectrum TV application.

Commercial Services

Charter offers scalable broadband communications solutions for businesses and carrier organizations of all sizes, selling Internet access, data networking, fiber connectivity to cellular towers and office buildings, video entertainment services and business telephone services.

Small and Medium Business

Spectrum Business offers Internet, voice and video services to SMBs over its hybrid fiber coaxial network. In addition, Charter offers its Spectrum Mobile service to SMB customers. Spectrum Business includes a full range of video programming and entry-level Internet speeds of 200 Mbps downstream and 10 Mbps upstream in virtually all of its markets. Additionally, customers can upgrade their Internet speeds by purchasing Internet Ultra (600 Mbps downstream) or Internet Gig. Spectrum Business also includes a set of business services including static IP and business WiFi, e-mail and security, and multi-line telephone services with more than 35 business features including web-based service management, that are generally not available to residential customers. Charter also offers Wireless Internet Backup to its SMB customers throughout its footprint. Wireless Internet Backup is designed to enhance and protect Internet service for SMBs in the event of a network disruption.

Enterprise

Spectrum Enterprise offers tailored communications products and managed service solutions to larger businesses and government entities (local, state and federal), as well as high-capacity last-mile network connectivity services to mobile and wireline carriers on a wholesale basis. The Spectrum Enterprise product portfolio includes connectivity services such as Internet Access (fiber, wireless and coax delivered); Wide Area Network ("WAN") solutions (Ethernet, SD-WAN and cloud connectivity) that privately and securely connect geographically dispersed customer locations and cloud service providers; and Managed Services which address a wide range of enterprise networking (e.g. routing, WiFi) and security (e.g. firewall, DDoS protection) challenges. To meet the communications needs of these more sophisticated customers, Spectrum Enterprise also offers an array of voice trunking services and unified messaging communications and collaboration solutions. In addition, for industries such as hospitality, education and healthcare where specialized video solutions are demanded, Spectrum Enterprise offers a wide range

Table of Contents

of solutions designed to meet those requirements. Spectrum Enterprise serves businesses nationally by combining its large serviceable footprint with a robust portfolio of fiber lit buildings and a significant wholesale partner network. As a result, these customers benefit by obtaining advanced solutions from a single provider who is committed to an exceptional customer experience and who delivers compelling value by simplifying procurement and offering competitive pricing potentially reducing their costs.

Advertising Services

Charter’s advertising sales division, Spectrum Reach, offers local, regional and national businesses the opportunity to advertise in individual and multiple service areas on cable television networks, various streaming services and numerous advanced advertising platforms. Charter receives revenue from the sale of local advertising across various platforms for networks such as TBS, CNN and ESPN and on its Sprectrum TV application. Charter inserts local advertising on up to 100 channels in over 90 markets. Charter’s large footprint provides opportunities for advertising customers to address broader regional audiences from a single provider and thus reach more customers with a single transaction. Charter’s size also provides scale to invest in new technology to create more targeted and addressable advertising capabilities.

Available advertising time is generally sold by Charter’s advertising sales force. In some service areas, Charter has formed advertising interconnects or entered into representation agreements with other video distributors, including, among others, Verizon, AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”), and Comcast Corporation, under which Charter sells advertising on behalf of those operators. In other service areas, Charter enters into representation agreements under which another operator in the area will sell advertising on its behalf. These arrangements enable Charter and its partners to deliver linear commercials across wider geographic areas, replicating the reach of local broadcast television stations to the extent possible. In addition, Charter enters into interconnect agreements from time to time with other cable operators, which, on behalf of a number of video operators, sells advertising time to national and regional advertisers in individual or multiple service areas.

Additionally, Charter sells the advertising inventory of its owned and operated local sports and news channels, of its regional sports networks that carry Los Angeles Lakers’ basketball games and other sports programming and of SportsNet LA, a regional sports network that carries Los Angeles Dodgers’ baseball games and other sports programming.

In 2021, Charter continued to expand its deployment of household addressability (“HHA”), which allows for more precise targeting within various parts of its footprint. Additionally, in conjunction with other MVPDs, Spectrum Reach enables affiliated cable networks to deploy HHA on their own inventory in Charter’s footprint, charging them an enablement fee. Charter also continues to further enhance its Ad Portal, which allows small businesses to purchase local cable advertising and/or creative services via its web portal with no sales personnel interaction at a price within their budgets. Charter’s fully deployed Audience App, which uses its proprietary set-top box viewership data (all anonymized and aggregated), allows Charter to create data-driven linear TV campaigns for local advertisers. Streaming TV, which is largely comprised of Spectrum TV application impressions, as well as those from numerous over-the-top streaming content providers, is part of its suite of advanced advertising products available to the marketplace. Finally, Spectrum Reach is now employing multi-screen deterministic attribution services for television and streaming services that lets advertisers know the effectiveness of their advertising on Spectrum Reach’s platform.

Other Services

Regional Sports Networks

Charter has an agreement with the Los Angeles Lakers for rights to distribute all locally available Los Angeles Lakers’ games through 2033. Charter broadcasts those games on its regional sports network, Spectrum SportsNet. American Media Productions, LLC ("American Media Productions"), an unaffiliated third party, owns SportsNet LA, a regional sports network carrying the Los Angeles Dodgers’ baseball games and other sports programming. In accordance with agreements with American Media Productions, Charter acts as the network’s exclusive affiliate and advertising sales representative and has certain branding and programming rights with respect to the network. In addition, Charter provides certain production and technical services to American Media Productions. The affiliate, advertising, production and programming agreements continue through 2038. Charter also owns 26.8% of Sterling Entertainment Enterprises, LLC (doing business as SportsNet New York), a New York City-based regional sports network that carries New York Mets’ baseball games as well as other regional sports programming.

Table of Contents

News Networks

Charter manages 34 local news channels, including Spectrum News NY1^® and LA1, 24-hour news channels focused on New York City and Los Angeles, respectively. Charter’s local news channels connect the diverse communities and neighborhoods Charter serves providing 24/7 hyperlocal content, focusing on news, programming and storytelling that addresses the deeper needs and interests of its customers. Charter also provides the Spectrum News application where customers can read, watch and listen to news stories by its Spectrum News journalists and local partner publications on their mobile device.

Pricing of Charter’s Products and Services

Charter’s revenue is principally derived from the monthly fees customers pay for the services Charter provides. Charter typically charges a one-time installation fee which is sometimes waived or discounted in certain sales channels during certain promotional periods.

Charter’s Spectrum pricing and packaging (“SPP”) generally offers a standardized price for each tier of service, bundle of services, and add-on service in a service area. Charter also has specialized offerings to enhance affordability of its Internet product for qualified low-income households which include its Spectrum Internet Assist product which offers a 30 Mbps service and a free modem for a low cost. In addition, some of Charter’s customers are eligible for a subsidy through the FCC Affordable Connectivity Program which provides eligible low-income households with up to $30 per month towards Internet service.

Charter’s mobile customers can choose one of two simple ways to pay for data. Customers can choose from unlimited or by-the-gig data usage plans and can easily switch between mobile data plans during the month. All plans include 5G service, free nationwide talk and text, and simple pricing that includes all taxes and fees. In October 2021, Charter implemented new multi-line unlimited data plans at lower prices for customers with two or more lines, at least one of which is an unlimited line. Customers can also purchase mobile devices and accessory products and have the option to pay for devices under interest-free monthly installment plans. Charter’s device portfolio includes 5G models from Apple, Google and Samsung and Charter offers trade-in options along with a bring-your-own device program which lowers the costs for its customers switching to Spectrum Mobile from other mobile operators.

Charter’s Network Technology

Charter’s network includes three key components: a national backbone, regional/metro networks and a “last-mile” network. Both its national backbone and regional/metro network components utilize a redundant IP ring/mesh architecture. The national backbone component provides connectivity from regional demarcation points to nationally centralized content, connectivity and services. The regional/metro network components provide connectivity between the regional demarcation points and headends within a specific geographic area and enable the delivery of content and services between these network components.

Charter’s last-mile network utilizes a hybrid fiber coaxial cable (“HFC”) architecture, which combines the use of fiber optic cable with coaxial cable. In most systems, Charter delivers its signals via fiber optic cable from the headend to a group of nodes, and uses coaxial cable to deliver the signal from individual nodes to the homes served by that node. For Charter’s Spectrum Enterprise customers, fiber optic cable is extended to the customer’s site. For certain new build and MDU sites, Charter increasingly brings fiber to the customer site. Charter’s design standard allows spare fiber strands to each node to be utilized for additional residential traffic capacity, and enterprise customer needs as they arise. Charter believes that this hybrid network design provides high capacity and signal quality.

HFC architecture benefits include:

Table of Contents

Charter’s systems provide a two-way all-digital platform, leveraging DOCSIS 3.1 technology and bandwidth of 750 megahertz or greater, to approximately 100% of its estimated passings. This bandwidth-rich network enables Charter to offer a large selection of HD channels and Spectrum Internet Gig and encrypted signals facilitate self-installs resulting in lower installation costs and truck rolls. Charter believes as demand for data continues to grow, with its deployed DOCSIS 3.1 technology, Charter has the ability to increase speeds and reliability by allocating more of its plant bandwidth to both upstream and downstream IP services in a variety of ways, including moving its video services to MPEG-4 compression, moving more HD video content to switched digital video and more efficiently packaging its traditional linear video services. Charter is also evaluating additional network enhancements to increase the capacity of its network for next generation products and services that give Charter the ability to offer multi-gigabit downstream speeds and up to one Gbps upstream speeds all in advance of migrating towards the next standard, DOCSIS 4.0, which Charter is currently developing with key vendors and industry participants. In 2022, Charter will continue to deploy high splits in its service areas which are a capital efficient means of enhancing Charter’s network, as they use current DOCSIS 3.1 customer premise equipment and reduce the need for node splits, which were required as average consumer bandwidth utilization increased.  

Charter owns 210 CBRS PALs and intends to use these licenses along with unlicensed CBRS spectrum to build its own 5G data-only mobile network on targeted 5G small cell sites leveraging its HFC network to provide power and data connectivity to the majority of the sites. These 5G small cells, combined with improving WiFi capabilities, increase speed and reliability along with improving Charter’s cost structure. Charter is focused on scaling its systems to actively manage traffic on Spectrum Mobile devices using its MVNO, network through WiFi and future 5G mobile network. In addition, Charter plans on deploying some targeted 5G small cell sites which will help it learn how to pace its broader multi-year 5G mobile network build-out based on disciplined cost reduction targets.

In 2021, Charter continued its rural broadband construction initiative in which it intends to expand its network and offer reliable broadband services of up to one Gbps to more than one million estimated passings in unserved areas in states where it currently operates. Charter expects to invest over $5 billion over the next several years, a portion of which it expects to offset with government funding including $1.2 billion of support won in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) auction and other federal, state and municipal grants that are available or that it expects to become available. In addition to construction in areas subsidized by various government grants, which could be material, Charter expects to continue rural construction in areas near its current plant and in areas surrounding subsidized construction where synergies can be achieved. These investments will allow Charter to generate long-term infrastructure-style returns by further taking advantage of the efficiencies of the scale and quality of its network and construction capabilities while offering its high quality products and services to more homes and businesses. Charter expects these newly-served homes will be enabled to engage in distance learning, remote work, telemedicine and other bandwidth-heavy applications that require high speed broadband connectivity. Newly-served rural areas will also benefit from Charter’s high-value SPP structure including its voice and mobile offerings, as well as its comprehensive selection of video products. The successful and timely execution of such fiber-based construction is dependent on a variety of external factors, including the make-ready and utility pole permitting processes. With fewer homes and businesses in these areas, broadband providers need to access multiple poles per home, as opposed to multiple homes per pole in higher-density settings. As a result, pole applications, pole replacement rules and their affiliated issue resolution processes are all factors that can have a significant impact on construction timing and speed to completion. The RDOF auction rules and other subsidy grants establish construction milestones for the build-out utilizing subsidized funding. Failure to meet those milestones could subject Charter to financial penalties.  

Management, Customer Operations and Marketing

Charter’s operations are centralized, with senior executives responsible for coordinating and overseeing operations, including establishing company-wide strategies, policies and procedures. Sales and marketing, field operations, customer operations, network operations, engineering, advertising sales, human resources, legal, government relations, information technology and finance are all directed at the corporate level. Regional and local field operations are responsible for customer premise service transactions and maintaining and constructing that portion of Charter’s network which is located outdoors. Charter’s field operations strategy includes completing a significant portion of its activity with its employees which Charter finds drives consistent and higher quality services. In 2021, Charter’s in-house field operations workforce handled approximately 80% of its customer premise service transactions.

Charter continues to focus on improving the customer experience through enhanced product offerings, reliability of services, and delivery of quality customer service. As part of Charter’s operating strategy, Charter insources most of its customer operations workload. Charter’s in-house call centers handle nearly all of Charter’s total customer service calls. Charter manages

Table of Contents

its customer service call centers centrally to ensure a consistent, high quality customer experience. In addition, Charter routes calls by call type to specific agents that only handle such call types, enabling agents to become experts in addressing specific customer needs, creating a better customer experience. Service from Charter’s call centers continues to become more efficient as a result of new tool enhancements that give its front-line customer service agents more context and real-time information about the customer and their services which allows them to more effectively troubleshoot and resolve issues. Charter’s call center agent desktop interface tool enables virtualization of all call centers thereby better serving its customers. Virtualization allows calls to be routed across Charter’s call centers regardless of the location origin of the call, reducing call wait times, and saving costs. Charter continues to migrate its call centers to full virtualization and expects all of its call centers to be fully virtualized by late 2022.

Charter also provides customers with the opportunity to interact with it in the manner they choose through self-service options on its customer website and mobile device applications, or via telephonic communication, online chat, and social media. Charter’s customer websites and mobile applications enable customers to pay their bills, manage their accounts, order and activate new services and utilize self-service help and support. In addition, Charter’s self-install program has enabled product installations to continue despite COVID-19 social distancing challenges and has been beneficial for customers who need flexibility in the timing of their installation.

Charter sells its residential and commercial services using national brand platforms known as Spectrum, Spectrum Business, Spectrum Enterprise and Spectrum Reach. These brands reflect Charter’s comprehensive approach to industry-leading products, driven by speed, performance and innovation. Charter’s marketing strategy emphasizes the sale of its bundled services through targeted direct response marketing programs to existing and potential customers, and increases awareness and the value of the Spectrum brand. Charter’s marketing organization creates and executes marketing programs intended to grow customer relationships, increase the number of services it sells per relationship, retain existing customers and cross-sell additional products to current customers. Charter monitors the effectiveness of its marketing efforts, customer perception, competition, pricing, and service preferences, among other factors, in order to increase its responsiveness to customers and to improve sales and customer retention. Charter’s marketing organization manages all residential and SMB sales channels including inbound, direct sales, on-line, outbound telemarketing and stores.

Programming

Charter believes that offering a wide variety of video programming choices influences a customer’s decision to subscribe and retain its cable video services. Charter obtains basic and premium programming, usually pursuant to written contracts, from a number of suppliers. Media corporation and broadcast station group consolidation has, however, resulted in fewer suppliers and additional selling power on the part of programming suppliers.

Programming is usually made available to Charter for a license fee, which is generally paid based on the number of customers to whom it makes that programming available. Programming license fees may include “volume” discounts and financial incentives to support the launch of a channel and/or ongoing marketing support, as well as discounts for channel placement or service penetration. For home shopping channels, Charter typically receives a percentage of the revenue attributable to its customers’ purchases. Charter also offers VOD and pay per view channels of movies and events that are subject to a revenue split with the content provider. Although an insignificant amount of Charter’s programming budget, recently Charter has begun entering into agreements to co-produce or exclusively license original content which gives it the right to provide its customers with certain exclusive content for a period of time.

Charter’s programming costs have historically increased in excess of customary inflationary and cost-of-living type increases. Charter expects programming costs per customer to increase due to a variety of factors including, annual increases pursuant to Charter’s programming contracts, contract renewals with programmers and the carriage of incremental programming, including new services and VOD programming. Increases in the cost of sports programming and the amounts paid for broadcast station retransmission consent have been the largest contributors to the growth in Charter’s programming costs over the last few years. Additionally, the demands of large media companies who link carriage of their most popular networks to carriage and cost increases of their less popular networks and who require Charter to carry their most popular networks to a large percentage of its video subscribers, have limited Charter’s flexibility in creating more tailored and cost-sensitive programming packages for consumers.

Federal law allows commercial television broadcast stations to make an election between “must-carry” rights and an alternative “retransmission-consent” regime. When a station opts for retransmission-consent, Charter is not allowed to carry the

Table of Contents

station’s signal without that station’s permission. Continuing demands by owners of broadcast stations for cash payments at substantial increases over amounts paid in prior years in exchange for retransmission consent will increase Charter’s programming costs or require Charter to cease carriage of popular programming, potentially leading to a loss of customers in affected service areas.

Over the past several years, increases in Charter’s video service rates have not fully offset the increases in its programming costs, and with the impact of increasing competition and other marketplace factors, Charter does not expect the increases in its video service rates to fully offset the increase in its programming costs per customer for the foreseeable future. Although Charter passes along a portion of amounts paid for retransmission consent to the majority of its customers, Charter’s inability to fully pass programming cost increases on to its video customers has had, and is expected in the future to have, an adverse impact on Charter’s cash flow and operating margins associated with its video product. In order to mitigate reductions of Charter’s operating margins due to rapidly increasing programming costs, Charter continues to review its pricing and programming packaging strategies.

Charter’s programming contracts are generally for a fixed period of time, usually for multiple years, and are subject to negotiated renewal. The contracts set to expire in any particular year vary. Charter will seek to renew these agreements on terms that it believes are favorable. There can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will be renewed on favorable or comparable terms. To the extent that Charter is unable to reach agreements with certain programmers on terms that Charter believes are reasonable, Charter has been, and may in the future be, forced to remove such programming channels from its line-up, which may result in a loss of customers.

Footprint

Charter operates in geographically diverse areas which are managed centrally on a consolidated level. The map below highlights its footprint as of December 31, 2021.

Table of Contents

Ownership Interests

We own an approximate 30.9% economic ownership interest in Charter, based on shares of Charter’s Class A common stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2021.

Upon the closing of the Time Warner Cable merger, the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated as of May 23, 2015, by and among Charter, Liberty Broadband and Advance/Newhouse Partnership, as amended (the “Stockholders Agreement”), became fully effective. Pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement, Liberty Broadband’s equity ownership in Charter (on a fully diluted basis) is capped at the greater of 26% or the voting cap (“Equity Cap”). As of December 31, 2021, due to Liberty Broadband’s voting interest exceeding the current voting cap of 25.01%, our voting control of the aggregate voting power of Charter is 25.01%. Under the Stockholders Agreement, Liberty Broadband has agreed to vote (subject to certain exceptions) all voting securities beneficially owned by it, or over which it has voting discretion or control that are in excess of the voting cap in the same proportion as all other votes cast by public stockholders of Charter with respect to the applicable matter.

In February 2021, Liberty Broadband was notified that its ownership interest, on a fully diluted basis, had exceeded the Equity Cap set forth in the Stockholders Agreement. On February 23, 2021, Charter and Liberty Broadband entered into a letter agreement in order to implement, facilitate and satisfy the terms of the Stockholders Agreement with respect to the Equity Cap. Pursuant to this letter agreement, following any month during which Charter purchases, redeems or buys back shares of its Class A common stock, and prior to certain meetings of Charter’s stockholders, Liberty Broadband will be obligated to sell to Charter, and Charter will be obligated to purchase, such number of shares of Class A common stock as is necessary (if any) to reduce Liberty Broadband’s percentage equity interest, on a fully diluted basis, to the Equity Cap (such transaction, a “Charter Repurchase”). The per share sale price for each share of Charter will be equal to the volume weighted average price paid by Charter in its repurchases, redemptions and buybacks of its common stock (subject to certain exceptions) during the month prior to the Charter Repurchase (or, if applicable, during the relevant period prior to the relevant meeting of Charter stockholders). Under the terms of the letter agreement, Liberty Broadband sold 6,077,664 shares of Charter Class A common stock to Charter for $4.2 billion during the year ended December 31, 2021 to maintain our fully diluted ownership percentage at 26%. Subsequent to December 31, 2021, Liberty Broadband sold 535,092 shares of Charter Class A common stock to Charter for $341 million.

Under the Stockholders Agreement, we have the right to designate three directors to the Charter board of directors, subject to certain exclusions and requirements. Charter has agreed to cause the appointment of at least one of our designees to serve on the nominating and corporate governance, finance, audit and compensation and benefits committees of the board, provided they meet the independence and other qualifications for membership on those committees.

Regulatory Matters

The following summary addresses the key regulatory and legislative developments affecting the cable industry and Charter and GCI Holdings’ services for both residential and commercial customers. Cable systems and related communications networks and services are extensively regulated by the federal government (primarily the FCC), certain state governments, and many local governments. A failure to comply with these regulations could subject both Charter and GCI Holdings to substantial penalties. The following summary of regulatory issues does not purport to describe all existing and proposed federal, state, and local laws and regulations, or judicial and regulatory proceedings that affect these businesses. These businesses can be dramatically impacted by changes to the existing regulatory framework, whether triggered by legislative, administrative, or judicial rulings. Congress and the FCC have frequently revisited the subject of communications regulation, and they are likely to do so again in the future. Charter and GCI Holdings could be materially disadvantaged in the future if they are subject to new laws, regulations or regulatory actions that do not equally impact key competitors. For example, Internet-delivered streaming video services compete with traditional video service, but they are not subject to the same level of federal, state, and local regulation. There is no assurance that the already extensive regulation of cable systems and communications networks will not be expanded in the future. In addition, Charter is subject to Charter-specific conditions regarding certain business practices as a result of the FCC’s approval of Charter’s merger in 2016 with Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”) and acquisition of Bright House Networks, LLC (“Bright House”).

Table of Contents

Video Service and Products

Must Carry/Retransmission Consent

There are two alternative legal methods for carriage of local broadcast television stations on cable systems. Federal “must carry” regulations require cable systems to carry local broadcast television stations upon the request of the local broadcaster. Alternatively, federal law includes “retransmission consent” regulations, by which commercial television stations can prohibit cable carriage unless the cable operator first negotiates for “retransmission consent,” which may be conditioned on significant payments or other concessions. Popular stations routinely invoke “retransmission consent” and demand substantial compensation increases in their negotiations with cable operators, thereby significantly increasing operating costs. The current rules do not require any cable operator to carry multiple digital programming streams from a single broadcast television station, but should the FCC change this policy, additional cable capacity would need to be devoted to carrying additional broadcast television programming streams, a step that could require the removal of other programming services.

Pole Attachments

The Communications Act requires most utilities owning utility poles to provide cable systems with access to poles and conduits and also subjects the rates charged for this access to either federal or state regulation. The federally regulated rates now applicable to pole attachments used for cable or telecommunications service, including when offered together with Internet services, are substantially similar. The FCC’s approach does not directly affect the rate in states that self-regulate, but many of those states have substantially the same rate for all communications attachments.

For the state of Alaska, in which GCI Holdings’ subsidiaries operate, the RCA does not use the federal formula and instead has adopted its own formula that has been in place since 1987. This formula could be subject to further revisions upon petition to the RCA. In addition, in 2011, the FCC adopted an order to rationalize different pole attachment rates among types of services, and in 2015, took further steps to bring telecommunications and cable pole attachment rates into parity. Though the general purpose of the rule changes was to ensure pole attachment rates as low and as uniform as possible, GCI Holdings does not expect the rules to have an impact on the terms under which it accesses poles. GCI Holdings cannot predict the likelihood of the RCA changing its formula, adopting the federal formula, or relinquishing its oversight of pole attachments to the FCC, any of which could increase the cost of its operations.

Other FCC Regulatory Matters

The Communications Act and FCC regulations cover a variety of additional areas applicable to its video services, including, among other things: (1) licensing of systems and facilities, including the grant of various spectrum licenses; (2) equal employment opportunity obligations; (3) customer service standards; (4) technical service standards; (5) mandatory blackouts of certain network and syndicated programming; (6) restrictions on political advertising; (7) restrictions on advertising in children's programming; (8) ownership restrictions; (9) maintenance of public files; (10) emergency alert systems; (11) inside wiring and exclusive contracts for MDU complexes; (12) disability access, including requirements governing video-description and closed-captioning; (13) competitive availability of cable equipment; (14) the provision of up to 15% of video channel capacity for commercial leased access by unaffiliated third parties; (15) public, education and government entity access requirements; and (16) cable rate regulation. Each of these regulations restricts Charter and GCI Holdings’ business practices to varying degrees and may impose additional costs on Charter and GCI Holdings’ operations.

The FCC regulates spectrum usage in ways that could impact Charter and GCI Holdings’ operations, including for microwave backhaul, broadcast, unlicensed WiFi and CBRS. These businesses’ ability to access and use such spectrum that may become available in the future is uncertain and may be limited by further FCC auction or allocation decisions. New spectrum obtained by other parties could also lead to additional wireless competition to these businesses’ existing and future services.

It is possible that Congress or the FCC will expand or modify its regulation of cable systems or the services delivered over cable systems and competing services in the future, and Charter and GCI Holdings cannot predict at this time how that might impact their businesses.

Table of Contents

Copyright

The carriage of television and radio broadcast signals by cable systems are subject to a federal compulsory copyright license. In exchange for filing certain reports and contributing a percentage of their revenue to a federal copyright royalty pool that varies depending on the size of the system, the number of distant broadcast television signals carried, and the location of the cable system, cable operators can obtain blanket permission to retransmit copyrighted material included in broadcast signals. The copyright law provides copyright owners the right to audit payments under the compulsory license, and the Copyright Office is currently considering modifications to the license’s royalty calculations and reporting obligations. The possible modification or elimination of this license is the subject of continuing legislative proposals and administrative review and could adversely affect Charter and GCI Holdings’ ability to obtain desired broadcast programming. Copyright clearances for non-broadcast programming services are arranged through private negotiations.

Franchise Matters

Charter and GCI Holdings’ cable systems generally are operated pursuant to nonexclusive franchises, permits, and similar authorizations granted by a municipality or other state or local government entity in order to utilize and cross public rights-of-way. Cable franchises generally are granted for fixed terms and in many cases include monetary penalties for noncompliance and may be terminable if the franchisee fails to comply with material provisions. The specific terms and conditions of cable franchises vary significantly between jurisdictions. They generally contain provisions governing cable operations, franchise fees, system construction, maintenance, technical performance, customer service standards, supporting and carrying public access channels, and changes in the ownership of the franchisee. Although local franchising authorities have considerable discretion in establishing franchise terms, certain federal protections benefit cable operators. For example, federal law imposes a 5% cap on franchise fees. In 2019, the FCC clarified that the value of in-kind contribution requirements set forth in cable franchises is subject to the statutory cap on franchise fees, and it reaffirmed that state and local authorities are barred from imposing franchise fees on non-cable services, such as Internet services, provided by cable operators over cable systems. Those rules were upheld by a federal court in 2021, but the court limited the amount of the in-kind services that could be considered to be a franchise fee to the operator’s marginal costs of providing such services rather than the market value of such services. Some franchise authorities have petitioned the Supreme Court to review this decision.

A number of states have adopted franchising laws that provide for statewide franchising. Generally, state-wide cable franchises are issued for a fixed term, streamline many of the traditional local cable franchise requirements and eliminate local negotiation. The RCA is the franchising authority for all of Alaska, and issues certificates of public convenience and necessity (“CPCNs”) for communities. GCI Holdings believes that it has generally met the terms of its CPCNs, which do not require periodic renewal, and has provided quality levels of service. Military franchise requirements also affect its ability to provide video services to military bases.

The Communications Act provides for an orderly franchise renewal process in which granting authorities may not unreasonably deny renewals. If Charter fails to obtain renewals of franchises representing a significant number of its customers, it could have a material adverse effect on Charter’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or its liquidity. Similarly, if a franchising authority’s consent is required for the purchase or sale of a cable system, the franchising authority may attempt to impose more burdensome requirements as a condition for providing its consent.

Data Services and Products

General. There is no one entity or organization that governs the global operation of the Internet. Each facilities-based network provider that is interconnected with the global Internet controls operational aspects of its own network. Certain functions, such as IP addressing, domain name routing, and the definition of the TCP/IP protocol, are coordinated by an array of quasi-governmental, intergovernmental, and non-governmental bodies. The legal authority of these bodies is not precisely defined.

The vast majority of users connect to the Internet over facilities of existing communications carriers. Those communications carriers are subject to varying levels of regulation at both the federal and state level. Thus, non-Internet-specific regulatory decisions exercise a significant influence over the economics of the Internet market.

Many aspects of the coordination and regulation of Internet activities and the underlying networks over which those activities are conducted are evolving. Internet-specific and non-Internet-specific changes in the regulatory environment, including

Table of Contents

changes that affect communications costs or increase competition from Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”) or other communications services providers, could adversely affect the costs and the prices for Internet-based services.

The FCC originally classified broadband Internet access services, such as those Charter and GCI Holdings offer, as an “information service,” which exempted the service from traditional communications common carrier laws and regulations. In 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access services as “telecommunications service” and, on that basis, imposed a number of “net neutrality” rules governing the provision of broadband service. In an order released in 2018, the FCC reversed its 2015 decision and eliminated the 2015 rules, other than a transparency requirement, which obligates Charter and GCI Holdings to disclose performance statistics and other service information to consumers. It is possible that the FCC might again revise its approach to broadband Internet access, or that Congress might enact legislation affecting the rules applicable to the service. The application of new legal requirements to both Charter and GCI Holdings’ Internet services could adversely affect their respective businesses.

The 2018 FCC order reclassifying Internet access services also ruled that state regulators may not impose obligations similar to federal network neutrality obligations that the FCC eliminated but this blanket prohibition was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. The court left open the possibility that individual state laws could be deemed preempted on a case by case basis if it is shown that they conflict with federal law. California and Vermont have adopted rules similar to the network neutrality requirements that the FCC eliminated. On January 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the California rules. California has also adopted other regulations on Internet services, including network resiliency rules to assure backup power is available after natural disasters and other outages. New York adopted legislation that would have required Internet service providers to offer a discounted Internet service to qualifying low-income consumers, but a federal district judge enjoined enforcement as likely to be deemed rate regulation of Internet service that would be preempted by federal law. Charter and GCI Holdings cannot predict what other legislation and regulations may be adopted by states or how challenges to such requirements will be resolved.

In recent years, federal and state governments have offered billions of dollars in subsidies to companies deploying broadband to areas deemed to be “unserved” or “underserved,” using funds from the FCC’s RDOF auction in 2020, The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”), and The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (the “Infrastructure Act”). Government efforts to subsidize areas that Charter and GCI Holdings already serve and to promote 5G wireless broadband services create regulatory imbalances that could adversely affect these businesses.

Charter and GCI Holdings have opposed such subsidies when directed to areas that are already served and have sought and expect to continue to seek subsidies for their own broadband construction in unserved and underserved areas including RDOF, ARPA, Capital Projects Fund, National Telecommunications and Information Administration grants and the Infrastructure Act. Charter was the winning bidder for RDOF awards in the amount of $1.2 billion over ten years that will partially fund, along with its substantial additional investment, the construction of new broadband infrastructure to more than one million estimated passings. These awards include a number of regulatory requirements, such as serving as the carrier of last resort and completing increasingly larger portions of the network construction by certain dates. If Charter fails to meet these obligations, Charter could be subject to substantial government penalties.

Aside from the FCC’s generally applicable regulations, Charter made certain commitments to comply with the FCC’s order in connection with the FCC’s approval of Charter’s merger with TWC and acquisition of Bright House that are discussed below in “Description of Business – Regulatory Matters – Commitments Related to the 2016 Merger with TWC and Acquisition of Bright House.

Rural Health Care (“RHC”) Program. The Universal Service Fund (“USF”) RHC Program provides funding to eligible healthcare providers for telecommunications and broadband services. The RHC Telecommunications Program subsidizes the rates for telecommunications services provided to rural health care providers based on the difference between the urban and rural rates for such services. The Healthcare Connect Fund Program provides support for high-capacity broadband connectivity to eligible health care providers. In connection with receiving these subsidies, GCI Holdings prepares annual cost studies in support of the rates it charges, and submits these studies to the FCC for review.

FCC Rate Reduction. In November 2017, the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC") requested further information in support of the rural rates charged to a number of GCI Holdings' RHC customers in connection with the funding requests for the year that runs July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. On October 10, 2018, GCI Holdings received a letter from the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) notifying it of the Bureau’s decision to reduce the rural rates charged to RHC

Table of Contents

customers for the funding year that ended on June 30, 2018 by approximately 26% resulting in a reduction of total support payments of $28 million. The FCC also informed GCI Holdings that the same cost methodology used for the funding year that ended on June 30, 2018 would be applied to rates charged to RHC customers in subsequent funding years. In response to the Bureau’s letter, GCI Holdings filed an Application for Review with the FCC.

On October 20, 2020, the Bureau issued two separate letters approving the cost-based rural rates GCI Holdings historically applied when recognizing revenue for services provided to its RHC customers for the funding years that ended on June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2020. GCI Holdings collected approximately $175 million in accounts receivable relating to these two funding years during the year ended December 31, 2021. GCI Holdings also filed an Application for Review of these determinations. Subsequently, GCI identified rates for similar services provided by a competitor that would justify higher rates for certain GCI satellite services in the funding years that ended on June 30, 2018, June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2020. GCI submitted that information to the Bureau on September 7, 2021. The Applications for Review remain pending.

​

On June 25, 2020, GCI Holdings submitted cost studies with respect to a number of its rates for services provided to its RHC customers for the funding year ended June 30, 2021, which require approval by the Bureau. GCI Holdings further updated those studies on November 12, 2020, to reflect the completion of the bidding season for that funding year. On May 24, 2021, the FCC approved the cost studies submitted by GCI Holdings for the funding year ended June 30, 2021. Subsequently, on August 16, 2021, GCI submitted a request for approval of rates for 17 additional sites, which remains pending.

​

RHC Program Funding Cap. The RHC program has a funding cap for each individual funding year that is annually adjusted for inflation, and which the FCC can increase by carrying forward unused funds from prior funding years. In recent years, including the current year, this funding cap has not limited the amount of funding received by participants; however, management continues to monitor the funding cap and its potential impact on funding in future years.

Enforcement Bureau and Related Inquiries. On March 23, 2018, GCI Holdings received a letter of inquiry and request for information from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC relating to the period beginning January 1, 2015 and including all future periods, to which it is in the process of responding. This includes inquiry into the rates charged by GCI Holdings, and presently it is unable to assess the ultimate outcome of this rate inquiry. Other aspects related to the Enforcement Bureau’s review of GCI Holdings’ compliance with program rules are discussed separately below. The ongoing uncertainty in program funding, as well as the uncertainty associated with the rate review, could have an adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, GCI Holdings became aware of potential RHC Program compliance issues related to certain of GCI Holdings’ currently active and expired contracts with certain of its RHC customers. The Company and its external experts performed significant and extensive procedures to determine whether GCI Holdings’ currently active and expired contracts with its RHC customers would be deemed to be in compliance with the RHC Program rules. GCI Holdings notified the FCC of the potential compliance issues in the fourth quarter of 2019.  

On May 28, 2020, GCI Holdings received a second letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau in the same matter noted above. This second letter, which was in response to a voluntary disclosure made by GCI Holdings to the FCC, extended the scope of the original inquiry to also include various questions regarding compliance with the records retention requirements related to the (i) original inquiry and (ii) RHC Program.

On December 17, 2020, GCI Holdings received a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the FCC’s Office of the Inspector General requiring production of documents from January 1, 2009 to the present related to a single RHC customer and related contracts, information regarding GCI Holdings’ determination of rural rates for a single customer, and to provide information regarding persons with knowledge of pricing practices generally.

On April 21, 2021, representatives of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) informed GCI Holdings that a qui tam action has been filed in the Western District of Washington arising from the subject matter under review by the Enforcement Bureau. The DOJ is investigating whether GCI Holdings submitted false claims and/or statements in connection with GCI’s participation in the FCC’s RHC Program. On July 14, 2021, the DOJ issued a Civil Investigative Demand with regard to the qui tam action.

GCI Holdings continues to work with the FCC and the DOJ to resolve all enforcement inquiries discussed above. With respect to the ongoing inquiries from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and the FCC’s Office of the Inspector General, GCI Holdings recognized a liability of approximately $12 million in 2019 for contracts that were deemed probable of not complying

Table of Contents

with the RHC Program rules. GCI Holdings also identified certain contracts where additional loss was reasonably possible and such loss could range from zero to $44 million. An accrual was not made for the amount of the reasonably possible loss in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance. GCI Holdings could also be assessed fines and penalties, but such amounts could not be reasonably estimated. With respect to the ongoing inquiries from the DOJ regarding the qui tam action, the Company is unable to assess the ultimate outcome of this action given the confidentiality of the qui tam process and is unable to determine whether any type of fine or penalty would ultimately be assessed as is permitted under the applicable law.  

Revision of Support Calculations. On August 20, 2019, the FCC released an order changing the manner in which support issued under the RHC Program will be calculated and approved. Some of these changes will become effective beginning with the funding year ended June 30, 2021, while others will apply beginning with the funding year ending June 30, 2022. On October 21, 2019, GCI Holdings appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On December 6, 2019, that appeal was held in abeyance for nine months due to pending Petitions for Reconsideration filed by other parties at the FCC and on September 25, 2020, the period of abeyance was extended through March 8, 2021. At the direction of the FCC, USAC has released a database that purports to determine a median rate which will cap the amount of support available for each service sold under the program, starting in the funding year ending June 30, 2022. GCI Holdings has sought FCC review of various aspects of the database implementation. On September 30, 2020, USAC released a refreshed version of the database incorporating limited changes submitted by interested parties. On January 19, 2021, the Bureau issued an Order that waives the requirement to use the database for health care providers in Alaska for the two funding years ending June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2023. The Order requires GCI Holdings to determine its rural rates based on previously approved rates or under reinstitution of the rules currently in effect through the funding year ended on June 30, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the Bureau issued an Order further extending the January 19, 2021 waiver to carriers nationwide and eliminating the ability or requirement to use the database to establish the healthcare provider payments for services subsidized by the RHC Telecom Program.

Schools and Libraries Program. In 2014, the FCC adopted orders modernizing the USF Schools and Libraries Program ("E-Rate"), which aids schools and libraries in obtaining affordable broadband. These orders, among other things, increased the annual E-Rate cap by approximately $1.5 billion, designated funds for internal connections within schools and libraries, and eliminated funding for certain legacy services, such as voice, to increase the availability of 21st century connectivity to support digital learning in schools nationwide. These orders did not have a material effect on the overall E-Rate support available to GCI Holdings’ schools and libraries customers, and therefore did not materially affect its revenue from such customers. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for additional risks related to GCI Holdings’ participation in this USF program.

Other Federal Activities. Congress and certain federal agencies are considering ways to streamline federal permitting obligations and are in the process of providing significant additional financial support for broadband services in areas that are difficult to serve. GCI Holdings continues to monitor these activities and cannot predict at this time whether those efforts will make a material difference to its ability to deploy broadband infrastructure.

Wireline Voice Services and Products

General. The FCC has never classified the VoIP wireline telephone services that Charter and GCI Holdings offer as “telecommunications services” that are subject to traditional federal common carrier regulation, but instead has imposed some of these regulatory requirements on a case-by-case basis, such as requirements relating to 911 emergency services (“E911”), Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) (the statute governing law enforcement access to and surveillance of communications), USF contributions, customer privacy and Customer Proprietary Network Information protections, number portability, network outage reporting, rural call completion, disability access, regulatory fees, back-up power, robocall mitigation, and discontinuance of service. It is possible that the FCC or Congress will impose additional requirements on VoIP telephone services in the future.

Charter and GCI Holdings’ VoIP telephone services are subject to certain state and local regulatory fees such as E911 fees and contributions to state universal service funds. Additionally, to comply with RDOF program requirements, Charter has chosen in the RDOF areas to offer certain of its VoIP telephone services, such as its federal or state Lifeline services, subject to traditional federal and state common carrier regulations. Except where Charter has chosen to offer VoIP telephone services in such a manner it believes that its VoIP telephone services should be governed primarily by federal regulation – e.g., some state regulations also apply to its VoIP service including consumer protection and 911 rules. A federal appellate court affirmed Charter’s successful challenge to Minnesota's attempt to generally apply telephone regulation to its VoIP services, but that ruling is limited to the seven states in the 8th circuit. Some states have attempted to subject cable VoIP services to state level regulation. California has imposed reporting and other obligations on Charter’s VoIP services, including backup power requirements. Charter

Table of Contents

has registered with or obtained certificates or authorizations from the FCC and the state regulatory authorities in those states in which Charter offers competitive voice services in order to ensure the continuity of its services. However, it is unclear whether and how these and other ongoing regulatory matters ultimately will be resolved. State regulatory commissions and legislatures may continue to consider imposing regulatory requirements on Charter’s fixed telephone services.

As an interexchange carrier, GCI Holdings is subject to regulation by the FCC and the RCA as a non-dominant provider of interstate, international, and intrastate long-distance services. As a state-certificated competitive local exchange carrier, GCI Holdings is subject to regulation by the FCC and the RCA as a non-dominant provider of local communications services. However, as of November 2019, the Alaska Legislature eliminated the RCA’s regulation of rates but retained its certificate authority for intrastate long-distance and local communications services. Military franchise requirements also affect GCI Holdings’ ability to provide communications services to military bases.

Universal Service for Rural and High Cost Areas. The USF provides support to Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (“ETCs”) related to their provision of facilities-based wireline telephone service in high cost areas. Under the Alaska High Cost Order issued by the FCC in 2016, GCI Holdings receives this support for its incumbent local exchange carrier operations, which are ETCs under FCC regulations and RCA Orders. This support is frozen at the 2011 levels for High Cost Loop Support and Interstate Common Line Support, with certain adjustments. The support has a ten-year term, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2026. Without ETC status, GCI Holdings would not qualify for USF support in these areas, and its net cost of providing local telephone services in these areas would be materially adversely affected. See “Description of Business – Regulatory Matters - Wireless Services and Products - Universal Service” for information on USF reform. Pursuant to the Alaska High Cost Order, GCI Holdings must meet certain performance requirements with respect to the offering of broadband services in its incumbent local exchange carrier areas. The FCC directed the Bureau to reassess those performance commitments before December 31, 2021, and the Bureau approved revised performance commitments on December 23, 2021. If GCI Holdings fails to meet these performance requirements, it will be subject to repayment of a portion of the high cost support received, as specified in the Alaska High Cost Order. Although GCI Holdings formerly received high cost support for service provided by its competitive local exchange carrier operations, the phase-down of that support pursuant to the Alaska High Cost Order concluded on December 31, 2018.

Rural Exemption and Interconnection. A Rural Telephone Company is exempt from compliance with certain material interconnection requirements under Section 251(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including the obligation to negotiate Section 251(b) and (c) interconnection requirements in good faith, unless and until a state regulatory commission lifts such “rural exemption” or otherwise finds it does not apply. All ILECs in Alaska are Rural Telephone Companies except Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. in its Anchorage study area. GCI Holdings participated in numerous proceedings regarding the rural exemptions of various ILECs in order to achieve the necessary interconnection agreements with the remaining ILECs. In other cases, the interconnection agreements were reached by negotiation without regard to the implications of the ILEC’s rural exemption.

GCI Holdings has negotiated and will continue to negotiate interconnection provisions as necessary. GCI Holdings has entered all of the major Alaskan markets with local access services.

See “Description of Business — Competition — Voice Services and Products Competition” for more information.

Access Charges and Other Regulated Fees. The FCC regulates the fees that local telephone companies charge long-distance companies for access to their local networks. In 2011, the FCC released rules to restructure and reduce over time terminating interstate access charges, along with a proposal to adopt similar reforms applicable to originating interstate access charges. The details of implementation in general and between different classes of technology continue to be addressed by the FCC, and could affect the economics of some aspects of GCI Holdings’ business. GCI Holdings cannot predict at this time the impact of this implementation or future implementation of adopted reforms, but GCI Holdings does not expect it to have a material adverse impact on its operations.

Unbundled Network Elements. Although GCI Holdings primarily provides communications services over its own facilities, the ability to obtain access to other providers’ networks is an important element of its local access services business. Changes in applicable regulations and the wholesale offerings of suppliers could affect GCI Holdings’ ability to provide service.

Table of Contents

Wireless Services and Products

General. The FCC regulates the licensing, construction, interconnection, operation, acquisition, and transfer of wireless network systems in the United States pursuant to the Communications Act. GCI Holdings’ wireless licensee subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the FCC, and must comply with certain build-out and other license conditions, as well as with the FCC’s specific regulations governing wireless services. The FCC imposes significant regulation on licensees of wireless spectrum with respect to how radio spectrum is used by licensees, the nature of services licensees may offer and how such services may be offered, and the resolution of issues of interference between spectrum bands. The FCC does not currently regulate rates for services offered by commercial mobile radio service providers (the official legal description for wireless service providers).

Commercial mobile radio service wireless systems are subject to Federal Aviation Administration and FCC regulations governing the location, lighting, construction, modification, and registration of antenna structures on which GCI Holdings’ antennas and associated equipment are located and are also subject to regulation under federal environmental laws and the FCC’s environmental regulations, including limits on radio frequency radiation from wireless handsets and antennas.

Universal Service. Under FCC regulations and RCA orders, GCI Holdings is an authorized ETC for purposes of providing wireless telephone service in many rural areas throughout Alaska. Without ETC status, GCI Holdings would not qualify for USF support in these areas or other rural areas where it proposes to offer facilities-based wireless telephone services, and its net cost of providing wireless telephone services in these areas would be materially adversely affected.

Under the Alaska High Cost Order. Per the Alaska High Cost Order, as of January 1, 2017, Remote (as defined by the Alaska High Cost Order) high cost support payments to Alaska High Cost participants are frozen on a per-company basis at adjusted December 2014 levels for a ten-year term in exchange for meeting individualized performance obligations to offer voice and broadband services meeting the service obligations at specified minimum speeds by five-year and ten-year service milestones to a specified number of locations. Remote high cost support is no longer dependent upon line counts and line count filings are no longer required. Under the terms of the Alaska High Cost Order, the FCC is to initiate a process in 2021 to eliminate duplicate support in areas that were served by more than one subsidized mobile wireless carrier as of December 31, 2020. As part of the Alaska High Cost Order, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on how to implement that process. The FCC has not to date issued any further orders with respect to that process.

See “Description of Business — Regulatory Matters — Wireline Voice Services and Products — Regulatory Regime Applicable to IP-based Networks” for more information.

Emergency 911. The FCC has imposed rules requiring carriers to provide emergency 911 services, including E911 services that provide the caller’s phone number and approximate location to local public safety dispatch agencies. Providers are required to transmit the geographic coordinates of the customer’s location, for both indoor and outdoor locations, within accuracy parameters revised by the FCC, to be implemented over a phase-in period. The FCC also imposed requirements to allow users to text-to-911 if the local public safety dispatch agency requests and is able to receive such texts. Providers may not demand cost recovery as a condition of providing E911, although they are permitted to negotiate cost recovery if it is not mandated by the state or local governments. On June 1, 2020 and subsequently on May 24, 2021, GCI Holdings timely sought waivers from the FCC concerning the percentage of wireless calls required to meet 911 location accuracy benchmarks pursuant to the FCC’s phase-in period. In December 2021, GCI Holdings met the 2020 benchmark. GCI Holdings has been able to meet FCC requirements for text-to-911 obligations to date.

State and Local Regulation. While the Communications Act generally preempts state and local governments from regulating the entry of, and the rates charged by, wireless carriers, it also permits a state to petition the FCC to allow it to impose commercial mobile radio service rate regulation when market conditions fail to adequately protect customers and such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the telephone wireline exchange service within a state. The State of Alaska currently has no such petition on file.

In addition, the Communications Act does not expressly preempt the states from regulating the “terms and conditions” of wireless service. Several states have invoked this “terms and conditions” authority to impose or propose various consumer protection regulations on the wireless industry. State attorneys general have also become more active in enforcing state consumer protection laws against sales practices and services of wireless carriers. States also may impose their own universal service support requirements on wireless and other communications carriers, similar to the contribution requirements that have been established by the FCC.

Table of Contents

States have become more active in attempting to impose new taxes and fees on wireless carriers, such as gross receipts taxes. Where successful, these taxes and fees are generally passed through to customers and result in higher costs to customers.

At the local level, wireless facilities typically are subject to zoning and land use regulation. Neither local nor state governments may categorically prohibit the construction of wireless facilities in any community or take actions, such as indefinite moratoria, which have the effect of prohibiting construction. Pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, state and local governments are further constrained in their regulation of changes to existing wireless infrastructure. Nonetheless, securing federal, state and local government approvals for new antenna structures has been and is likely to continue to be difficult, lengthy, and costly.

Charter’s Spectrum Mobile Service

Charter’s Spectrum Mobile service offers mobile Internet access and telephone service. Charter provides this service as an MVNO using Verizon’s network and its network through Spectrum WiFi. As an MVNO, Charter is subject to many of the same FCC regulations that apply to facilities-based wireless carriers, as well as certain state or local regulations, including (but not limited to): E911, local number portability, customer privacy, CALEA, universal service fund contribution, robocall mitigation and hearing aid compatibility and safety and emission requirements for mobile devices. Spectrum Mobile’s broadband Internet access service is also subject to the FCC’s transparency rule. The FCC or other regulatory authorities may adopt new or different regulations for MVNOs and/or mobile service providers in the future, or impose new taxes or fees applicable to Spectrum Mobile, which could adversely affect the service offering or Charter’s business generally.

Privacy and Information Security Regulation

The Communications Act limits Charter and GCI Holdings’ ability to collect, use, and disclose customers’ personally identifiable information for its Internet, video, and voice services. Charter and GCI Holdings are subject to additional federal, state, and local laws and regulations that impose additional restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of consumer information. All broadband providers are also obliged by CALEA to configure their networks in a manner that facilitates the ability of state and federal law enforcement, with proper legal process authorized under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, to obtain records and information concerning their customers, including the content of their communications. Further, the FCC, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), and many states regulate and restrict the marketing practices of communications service providers, including telemarketing and sending unsolicited commercial emails. The FTC currently has the authority, pursuant to its general authority to enforce against unfair or deceptive acts and practices, to protect the privacy of Internet service customers, including Charter and GCI Holdings’ use and disclosure of certain customer information.

Charter and GCI Holdings’ operations are also subject to federal and state laws governing information security. In the event of an information security breach, such rules may require consumer and government agency notification and may result in regulatory enforcement actions with the potential of monetary forfeitures. The FCC, the FTC, and state attorneys general regularly bring enforcement actions against companies related to information security breaches and privacy violations.

Various security standards provide guidance to telecommunications companies in order to help identify and mitigate cybersecurity risks. One such standard is the voluntary Cybersecurity Framework (“CSF”) released by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (“NIST”) in 2014 and updated in 2018, in cooperation with other federal agencies and owners and operators of U.S. critical infrastructure. The NIST CSF provides a prioritized and flexible model for organizations to identify and manage cyber risks inherent to their business. It was designed to supplement, not supersede, existing cybersecurity regulations and requirements. Several government agencies have encouraged compliance with the NIST CSF, including the FCC, which is also considering expansion of its cybersecurity guidelines or the adoption of cybersecurity requirements. Charter and GCI voluntarily follow the NIST CSF as part of their overall cybersecurity programs.

Many states and local authorities have considered legislative or other actions that would impose restrictions on Charter’s ability to collect, use and disclose, and safeguard certain consumer information, particularly with regard to its broadband Internet business. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and Maine’s Act to Protect Privacy of Online Customer Information both became effective in 2020. The CCPA, under certain circumstances, regulates companies’ use and disclosure of the personal information of California residents and authorizes enforcement actions by the California Attorney General and private class actions for data breaches. In addition, effective January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act, adopted by ballot initiative in 2020, will amend the CCPA to impose additional obligations on companies that handle the personal information of California residents. The Maine law regulates how Internet service providers use and disclose customers’ personal information

Table of Contents

and requires Internet service providers to take reasonable measures to protect customers’ personal information. In addition, Virginia and Colorado each enacted privacy laws in 2021 that will become effective in 2023 and will regulate the way that companies collect, use, and share personal information about consumers. Several other state legislatures are considering the adoption of new data security and cybersecurity legislation that could result in additional network and information security requirements for Charter’s business. Congress may also adopt new privacy and data security obligations. Charter cannot predict whether any of these efforts will be successful or preempted, or how new legislation and regulations, if any, would affect its business.

Environmental Regulations

GCI Holdings undertakes activities that may, under certain circumstances, affect the environment. Accordingly, it may be subject to federal, state, and local laws designed to preserve or protect the environment, including the Clean Water Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The FCC, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Park Service are among the federal agencies required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and National Historic Preservation Act to consider the environmental impact of actions they authorize, including facility construction.

The principal effect of GCI Holdings’ facilities on the environment would be in the form of construction of facilities and networks at various locations in Alaska and between Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. GCI Holdings’ facilities have been constructed in accordance with federal, state and local building codes and zoning regulations whenever and wherever applicable. GCI Holdings obtains federal, state, and local permits, as required, for its projects and operations. GCI Holdings is unaware of any material violations of federal, state, or local regulations or permits.

Remaining Commitments Related to the 2016 Merger with TWC and Acquisition of Bright House

In connection with approval of Charter’s 2016 merger with TWC and acquisition of Bright House (the “Transactions”), federal and state regulators imposed a number of post-transaction conditions on Charter, many of which have been fulfilled or have terminated. Remaining federal commitments include the following.

FCC Conditions

The FCC conditions also contain a number of compliance reporting requirements.

DOJ Conditions

The DOJ Order prohibits Charter from entering into or enforcing any agreement with a video programmer that forbids, limits or creates incentives to limit the video programmer’s provision of content to online video distributors. Charter will not be able to avail itself of other distributors’ most favored nation (“MFN”) provisions if they are inconsistent with this prohibition. The DOJ’s conditions are effective for seven years after entry of the final judgment in 2016, although Charter may petition the DOJ to eliminate the conditions after five years. Charter currently does not expect to so petition.

Table of Contents

Competition

Charter and GCI Holdings operate in intensely competitive industries and compete with a number of companies that provide a broad range of communication, entertainment, and information products and services. Technological changes are further intensifying and complicating the competitive landscape and consumer behavior.

Residential/Consumer Services

Charter and GCI Holdings face intense competition for residential customers, both from existing competitors, and, as a result of the rapid development of new technologies, services and products, from new entrants.

Internet competition

The Internet industry is highly competitive, rapidly evolving and subject to constant technological change. Competition is based upon price, service bundles, the services and enhancements offered, the technologies used, customer service, billing services, and perceived quality, reliability and availability.

Charter and GCI Holdings’ residential Internet services face competition across their footprints from fiber-to-the-home (“FTTH”), fiber-to-the-node (“FTTN”), fixed wireless broadband, Internet delivered via satellite and digital subscriber line (“DSL”) services. AT&T, Frontier Communications Corporation’s (“Frontier”) fiber optic service (“FiOS” or “Fios”) and Verizon’s Fios are Charter’s primary FTTH competitors. Given the FTTH deployments of Charter’s competitors, launches of broadband services offering 1 Gbps speed have recently grown. Several competitors, including AT&T, Frontier’s FiOS, Verizon’s Fios, WideOpenWest, Inc. (“WOW”) and Google Fiber, deliver 1 Gbps broadband speed (and some delivering 2 Gbps) in at least a portion of their footprints which overlap Charter’s footprint. In several markets, Charter and GCI Holdings also face competition from one or more fixed wireless providers which deliver point-to-point Internet connectivity, although generally in areas limited to residential MDUs. Additionally, several mobile network operators offer LTE or 5G delivered fixed wireless home Internet service in an increasing number of Charter’s markets. DSL service is offered across Charter’s footprint and a portion of GCI Holdings’ footprint, often at prices lower than Charter and GCI Holdings’ Internet services, although typically at speeds much lower than the minimum speeds offered by Charter and GCI Holdings. In addition, a growing number of commercial areas, such as retail malls, restaurants and airports, offer WiFi Internet service. Numerous local governments are also considering or actively pursuing publicly subsidized WiFi Internet access networks. These options offer alternatives to cable-based Internet access. Charter faces terrestrial broadband Internet (defined as at least 25 Mbps) competition from three primary competitors, AT&T, Frontier and Verizon in approximately 34%, 9% and 5% of its operating areas, respectively.

Video competition

Charter and GCI Holdings’ residential video services face competition from direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) service providers, which have a national footprint and compete in all of Charter’s operating areas. DBS providers offer satellite-delivered pre-packaged programming services that can be received by relatively small and inexpensive receiving dishes. DBS providers offer aggressive promotional pricing, exclusive programming (e.g., NFL Sunday Ticket) and video services that are comparable in many respects to Charter and GCI Holdings' residential video service. Charter’s residential video service also faces competition from large telecommunications companies, primarily Frontier FiOS and Verizon Fios, which offer wireline video services in significant portions of Charter’s operating areas.

Charter and GCI Holdings’ residential video services also face growing competition across their footprints from a number of other sources, including companies that deliver linear network programming, movies and television shows on demand and other video content over broadband Internet connections to televisions, computers, tablets and mobile devices. These competitors include virtual multichannel video programming distributors (“V-MVPDs”) such as Hulu Live, YouTube TV, Sling TV, Philo and DirecTV Stream. Other online video business models and products have also developed, some offered by programmers that have not traditionally sold programming directly to consumers, including, (i) subscription video on demand (“SVOD”) services such as Netflix, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+, AMC+, Starz and Showtime Anytime, (ii) ad-supported free online video products, including YouTube and Pluto TV, some of which offer programming for free to consumers that Charter currently purchases for a fee, (iii) pay-per-view products, such as iTunes, and Amazon Instant, and (iv) additional offerings from mobile providers which continue to integrate and bundle video services and mobile products. Historically, Charter has generally viewed SVOD online video services as complementary to its own video

Table of Contents

offering, and has developed a cloud-based guide that is capable of incorporating video from online video services currently offered in the marketplace. As the proliferation of online video services grows, however, services from V-MVPDs and direct to consumer offerings, as well as piracy and password sharing, negatively impact the number of customers purchasing Charter’s video product.

Voice competition

Charter and GCI Holdings’ residential voice services compete with wireless and wireline phone providers across their footprints, as well as other forms of communication, such as text messaging on cellular phones, instant messaging, social networking services, video conferencing and email. Charter and GCI Holdings also compete with “over-the-top” phone providers, such as Vonage, Skype, magicJack, Google Voice and Ooma, Inc., as well as companies that sell phone cards at a cost per minute for both national and international service. The increase in the number of different technologies capable of carrying voice services and the number of alternative communication options available to customers as well as the replacement of wireline services by wireless have intensified the competitive environment in which Charter and GCI Holdings operate their residential voice services.

GCI Holdings also competes against ILECs, long-distance resellers and certain smaller rural local telephone companies for local access and long-distance. GCI Holdings has competed by offering what it believes is excellent customer service and by providing desirable bundles of services.

Mobile Competition

Charter and GCI Holdings’ mobile services face competition from national mobile network operators including AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile US, Inc. ("T-Mobile"), as well as a variety of regional operators and mobile virtual network operators. Most carriers offer unlimited data packages to customers. Various operators also offer wireless Internet services delivered over networks which they continue to enhance to deliver faster speeds. As a regional wireless carrier, GCI Holdings may not have immediate access to some wireless handsets that are available to these national wireless carriers.

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile continue to expand 5G mobile services. Additionally, in connection with Dish Network Corporation’s acquisition of Sprint Corporation’s (“Sprint”) prepaid mobile services businesses, the FCC and DOJ have imposed a timeline on Dish Network Corporation (70% by June 2023) for 5G network development and expansion. Charter also competes for retail activations with other resellers that buy bulk wholesale service from wireless service providers for resale.  

Regional Competitors

In some of Charter’s operating areas, other competitors have built networks that offer Internet, video and voice services that compete with its services. For example, in certain service areas, Charter’s residential Internet, video and voice services compete with WOW, Cincinnati Bell Inc., Google Fiber, Hawaiian Telcom (owned by Cincinnati Bell Inc.) and Grande Communications Networks, LLC.

Additional competition

In addition to multi-channel video providers, cable systems compete with other sources of news, information and entertainment, including over-the-air television broadcast reception, live events, movie theaters and the Internet. Competition is also posed by fixed wireless and satellite master antenna television systems, serving MDUs, such as condominiums, apartment complexes, and private residential communities.

Business Services

Charter and GCI Holdings face intense competition across each of their business service product offerings. Charter’s SMB Internet, video and voice services face competition from a variety of providers as described above. Charter’s enterprise solutions also face competition from the competitors described above as well as cloud-based application-service providers, managed service providers and other telecommunications carriers, such as metro and regional fiber-based carriers. GCI Holdings’ business wireless, data and voice services face similar competition as described above for its consumer products.

Table of Contents

Advertising

Charter and GCI Holdings face intense competition for advertising revenue across many different platforms and from a wide range of local and national competitors. Advertising competition has increased and will likely continue to increase as new advertising platforms seek to attract the same advertisers. Charter and GCI Holdings compete for advertising revenue against, among others, local broadcast stations, national cable and broadcast networks, radio stations, print media and online advertising companies and content providers.

Human Capital Resources

Employees

As described above, Liberty Broadband is party to a services agreement with Liberty, pursuant to which 86 Liberty corporate employees provide certain management services to Liberty Broadband for a determined fee. As a result, Liberty Broadband is not responsible for the hiring, retention and compensation of these individuals (except that Liberty Broadband does grant equity incentive awards to these individuals). However, Liberty Broadband directly benefits from the efforts undertaken by Liberty to attract and retain talented employees. Liberty strives to create a diverse, inclusive and supportive workplace, with opportunities for its employees to grow and develop in their careers, supported by competitive compensation, benefits and health and wellness programs, and by programs that build connections between its employees and their communities. Liberty Broadband fully supports these efforts.

As of December 31, 2021, the Company’s consolidated subsidiaries had an aggregate of approximately 1,900 full and part-time employees and the Company is not party to any union contracts with its employees. Liberty Broadband believes that its employee relations are good.

GCI Holdings

GCI Holdings (or “GCI”) has been operating in Alaska for more than 40 years and most of its employees live in the communities it serves. Many of GCI’s employees have been with the company for decades and, in some cases, their children have joined the GCI team and have become the next generation of the GCI family. This sense of family and valuing its employees is a strong part of GCI’s culture and is one that generates pride among employees and company leadership. GCI is committed to creating and maintaining an environment that is inclusive, supportive and provides opportunities for excellence and advancements. To that end, GCI is committed to ensuring its employees, at all levels of the company, are experts in their fields, and provides opportunities for training, including certifications relating to various technical aspects of the GCI business, training in people skills, management best practices and team-building, as well as tuition reimbursement to employees who are pursuing college or technical schools degrees while working for GCI. In 2020, GCI launched an initiative to evaluate the incorporation of diversity, equity and inclusion principles in all corporate operations and continues to assess and evolve its practices to create a focus on these principles.

GCI is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy workplace and has implemented several new safety protocols to keep its employees and customers safe during the pandemic, including moving more than 70% of employees to work-from-home status, installing plexiglass shields and sourcing additional sanitization supplies for our retail spaces. GCI has also limited the number of home visits by its field technicians by working with customers to resolve issues remotely and adopting new, socially distanced methods of troubleshooting and following strict safety precautions in the event an in-person visit is necessary.

Available Information

All of our filings with the SEC including our Form 10-Ks, Form 10-Qs and Form 8-Ks, as well as amendments to such filings are available on our Internet website free of charge generally within 24 hours after we file such material with the SEC. Our website address is www.libertybroadband.com.

Our corporate governance guidelines, code of business conduct and ethics, compensation committee charter, nominating and corporate governance committee charter, and audit committee charter are available on our website. In addition, we will provide a copy of any of these documents, free of charge, to any shareholder who calls or submits a request in writing to Investor Relations, Liberty Broadband Corporation, 12300 Liberty Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112, Tel. No. (844) 826-8735.

Table of Contents

The information contained on our website and the websites of GCI Holdings and Charter are not incorporated by reference herein.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The risks described below and elsewhere in this annual report are not the only ones that relate to our businesses or our capitalization. The risks described below are considered to be the most material. However, there may be other unknown or unpredictable economic, business, competitive, regulatory or other factors that also could have material adverse effects on our businesses. Past financial performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance and historical trends should not be used to anticipate results or trends in future periods. If any of the events described below were to occur, our businesses, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Factors Relating to Our Corporate History and Structure

We are a holding company, and we could be unable to obtain cash in amounts sufficient to service our financial obligations or meet our other commitments.

Our ability to meet our current and future financial obligations, including to make debt service obligations under the Margin Loan Agreement (defined below) and the Company Debentures (defined below), and other contractual commitments depends upon our ability to access cash. We are a holding company, and our sources of cash include our available cash balances, net cash from the operating activities of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, any dividends and interest we may receive from our investments, available funds under the Margin Loan Agreement (defined below) (which was $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2021) and proceeds from any asset sales or other forms of asset monetization we may undertake in the future. In addition, the ability of our operating subsidiaries to pay dividends or to make other payments or advances to us depends on their operating results and any statutory, regulatory or contractual restrictions to which they may be or may become subject.

Other than cash generated from our participation in Charter’s stock repurchase program, we do not have access to the cash that Charter generates from its operating activities.

Notwithstanding our ownership interest in Charter and our having three nominees on its thirteen-member board of directors, we have no ability to cause Charter to pay dividends to us, and we cannot cause Charter to make funds available to us except to the extent we are obligated to participate in Charter’s stock repurchase program pursuant to the terms of the Stockholders Agreement and the letter agreement entered into on February 23, 2021 in order to reduce our percentage equity interest, on a fully diluted basis, to the Equity Cap. Charter generated approximately $16,239 million, $14,562 million and $11,748 million of cash from its operations during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Charter uses the cash it generates from its operations primarily to fund its business operations, service its debt and other financial obligations and repurchase shares of its common stock. We do not have access to the cash that Charter generates unless Charter declares a dividend on its capital stock payable in cash, engages in stock repurchases for cash or otherwise distributes or makes payments to its stockholders, including us. Historically, Charter has not paid any dividends on its capital stock or, with limited exceptions, otherwise distributed cash to its stockholders and instead has used all of its available cash in the expansion of its business, to service its debt obligations and to repurchase shares of its common stock. Covenants in Charter’s existing debt instruments also restrict the payment of dividends and cash distributions to stockholders. We expect that Charter will continue to apply its available cash as described above.

We rely on Charter to provide us with the financial information that we use in accounting for our ownership interest in Charter as well as information regarding Charter that we include in our public filings.

We account for our approximately 30.9% economic ownership interest in Charter using the equity method of accounting and, accordingly, in our financial statements we record our share of Charter’s net income or loss. Within the meaning of U.S. accounting rules, we rely on Charter to provide us with financial information prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, which we use in the application of the equity method. We also rely on Charter to provide us with the information regarding their company that we include in our public filings. In addition, we cannot change the way in which Charter reports its financial results or require Charter to change its internal controls over financial reporting. No assurance can be given that Charter will provide us with the information necessary to enable us to complete our public filings on a timely basis or at all.

Table of Contents

Furthermore, any material misstatements or omissions in the information Charter provides to us or publicly files could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements and filing status under federal securities laws.

We may become subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940.

We do not believe we are currently subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) because our investment in Charter enables us to exercise significant influence over Charter. We have substantial involvement in the management and affairs of Charter, including through our board nominees. We nominated three of Charter’s thirteen current directors. In connection with the Transactions, on May 23, 2015, we entered into the Stockholders Agreement, which continues to provide us with board nomination rights. If, however, our investment in Charter was deemed to become passive (such as in the event that our equity interests were significantly diluted and our nominees ceased to serve as directors of Charter), we could become subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act. In such event, we would be required to register as an investment company, which could result in significant registration and compliance costs, could require changes to our corporate governance structure and financial reporting and could restrict our activities going forward. Our restated certificate of incorporation includes a provision that would enable us, at the option of our board of directors, to automatically convert each outstanding share of our Series B common stock into one share of our Series A common stock at such time as we have outstanding less than 20% of the total number of shares of our Series B common stock issued in our 2014 spin-off from Liberty. In addition, if we were to become inadvertently subject to the Investment Company Act and failed to register as an investment company in violation of the Investment Company Act, such violation could subject us to material adverse consequences, including potentially significant regulatory penalties and the possibility that our contracts would be deemed unenforceable.

Our company has overlapping directors and officers with Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo and Liberty Media Acquisition Corporation, which may lead to conflicting interests.

As a result of our spin-off from Liberty in 2014 and other transactions between 2011 and 2014 that resulted in the separate corporate existence of Liberty, Qurate Retail, and TripCo, as well as the initial public offering of Liberty Media Acquisition Corporation (“LMAC”) in January 2021, all of our executive officers also serve as executive officers of Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo and LMAC, and there are overlapping directors. Other than Liberty’s ownership of LMAC’s sponsor, which beneficially owns 20% of LMAC’s outstanding common stock as of December 31, 2021, none of these companies has any ownership interest in any of the others. Our executive officers and members of our company’s board of directors have fiduciary duties to our stockholders. Likewise, any such persons who serve in similar capacities at Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo, LMAC or any other public company have fiduciary duties to that company’s stockholders. For example, there may be the potential for a conflict of interest when our company, Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo or LMAC pursues acquisitions and other business opportunities that may be suitable for each of them. Therefore, such persons may have conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest with respect to matters involving or affecting more than one of the companies to which they owe fiduciary duties. Each of our company, TripCo and LMAC has renounced its rights to certain business opportunities and their respective restated certificate of incorporation provides that no director or officer of the respective company will breach their fiduciary duty and therefore be liable to the respective company or its stockholders by reason of the fact that any such individual directs a corporate opportunity to another person or entity (including Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo and LMAC) instead of the respective company, or does not refer or communicate information regarding such corporate opportunity to our company, unless (x) such opportunity was expressly offered to such person solely in his or her capacity as a director or officer of the respective company or as a director or officer of any of the respective company’s subsidiaries, and (y) such opportunity relates to a line of business in which the respective company or any of its subsidiaries is then directly engaged. In addition, any potential conflict that qualifies as a “related party transaction” (as defined in Item 404 of Regulation S-K) is subject to review by an independent committee of the applicable issuer’s board of directors in accordance with its corporate governance guidelines. Any other potential conflicts that arise will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind the applicable fiduciary duties owed by the executive officers and directors of each issuer. From time to time, we may enter into transactions with Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo, LMAC and/or their respective subsidiaries or other affiliates. There can be no assurance that the terms of any such transactions will be as favorable to our company, Liberty, Qurate Retail, TripCo, or LMAC or any of their respective subsidiaries or affiliates as would be the case where there is no overlapping officer or director.

Certain of our inter-company agreements were negotiated while we were a subsidiary of Liberty.

We entered into a number of inter-company agreements covering matters such as tax sharing and our responsibility for certain liabilities previously undertaken by Liberty for certain of our businesses. In addition, we entered into a services agreement

Table of Contents

with Liberty pursuant to which it provides to us certain management, administrative, financial, treasury, accounting, tax, legal and other services, for which we reimburse them on a fixed fee basis, which was amended to provide that components of our President and Chief Executive Officer’s compensation will either be paid directly to him by our company or reimbursed to Liberty, in each case, based on the allocation set forth in the amendment. The terms of all of these agreements (other than the amendment to the services agreement) were established while we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty, and hence may not be the result of arms’ length negotiations. We believe that the terms of these inter-company agreements are commercially reasonable and fair to all parties under the circumstances; however, conflicts could arise in the interpretation or any extension or renegotiation of the foregoing agreements.

Our ability to use net operating loss and disallowed business interest carryforwards to reduce future tax payments could be negatively impacted if there is an “ownership change” as defined under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), of our Company.

​

At December 31, 2021, we had a deferred tax asset attributable to federal and state net operating losses and disallowed business interest carryforwards of $94 million and under the Code, we may carry forward our federal net operating losses and disallowed business interest deductions in certain circumstances to offset current and future taxable income and reduce our federal income tax liability, subject to certain requirements and restrictions. If we experience an “ownership change,” as defined in Section 382 of the Code and related Treasury regulations (generally, a cumulative change in ownership that exceeds 50% of the value of a corporation's stock over a rolling three-year period) at a time when our market capitalization is below a certain level or proposed Treasury regulations under Section 382 of the Code issued during 2019 have become final and are applicable (taking into account the delayed effective date of such regulations), our ability to use our federal net operating loss and disallowed business interest carryforwards could be substantially limited. This limit could impact the timing of the usage of our net operating loss and disallowed business interest carryforwards, thus accelerating federal cash tax payments or causing certain federal net operating loss carryforwards to expire prior to their use, which could affect the ultimate realization of that deferred tax asset. Similar limitations may also apply at the state level.

Factors Related to Our and Our Subsidiaries’ Indebtedness

Our company may have future capital needs and may not be able to obtain additional financing, or refinance or renew our existing indebtedness, on acceptable terms. Further, our and our subsidiaries’ ability to service our respective debt and any other obligations will require access to funds, which may be restricted.

As of December 31, 2021, we had approximately $3.7 billion principal amount of debt outstanding, consisting of (i) $1.3 billion outstanding under a credit agreement (as amended, the “Margin Loan Agreement”) governing a multi-draw margin loan agreement credit facility entered into in 2017 by a bankruptcy remote wholly owned subsidiary (“SPV”) of Liberty Broadband; (ii) $575 million outstanding under our 2.75% Exchangeable Senior Debentures due 2050 and $825 million outstanding under our 1.25% Exchangeable Senior Debentures due 2050 (collectively, the “Company Debentures”); (iii) $15 million outstanding under the 1.75% exchangeable senior debentures due 2046 originally issued by GCI Liberty; (iv) $600 million outstanding under GCI, LLC’s 4.750% senior notes due 2028 (the “Senior Notes”); and (v) $399 million in outstanding term and revolving loans under GCI, LLC’s senior secured credit facility with a syndicate of banks (the “Senior Credit Facility”). We also had $1.0 billion remaining available to be drawn until five business days prior to May 12, 2024 at December 31, 2021 under the Margin Loan Agreement. Further, as a result of multiple transactions, including the Combination, we have entered into an indemnification agreement pursuant to which, among other things, (1) we will indemnify Liberty Interactive LLC (“Liberty LLC”) with respect to any of Liberty LLC's 1.75% Exchangeable Debentures due 2046 (the “Liberty Charter Exchangeable Debentures”) surrendered for exchange to Liberty LLC on or before October 5, 2023 for the amount by which (i) the exchange value exceeds (ii) the sum of the adjusted principal amount of such Liberty Charter Exchangeable Debentures plus the amount of certain tax benefits attributable to such Liberty Charter Exchangeable Debentures so exchanged, and (2) Qurate Retail, Liberty Broadband and GCI Liberty will indemnify each other with respect to certain potential losses in respect of the 2018 split-off of GCI Liberty by Qurate Retail.

Our and our subsidiaries’ ability to service the respective financial obligations will depend on our and their ability to access cash, and cash flows from operations may be insufficient to satisfy the respective financial obligations under indebtedness outstanding from time to time. Accessing cash at operating subsidiaries will depend on those subsidiaries individual operating results and any statutory or regulatory restrictions. The obligations under the Margin Loan Agreement are secured by a portion of our ownership interest in Charter. Such equity interests are held through SPV. The terms of the Margin Loan Agreement limit

Table of Contents

our company’s ability to secure additional financing on favorable terms. In addition, covenants included in the Senior Notes and Senior Credit Facility will limit the ability of certain subsidiaries to upstream or downstream cash for this purpose. Our and our subsidiaries’ other potential sources of cash include available cash balances, dividends and interest from its investments, monetization of public investments, and proceeds from asset sales.

Moreover, our and our subsidiaries’ ability to secure additional financing will depend upon the operating performance of our subsidiaries, the value of our investment in Charter, prevailing general economic and credit market conditions, including interest rate levels and the availability of credit generally, the state of competition in our subsidiaries’ respective markets, the outcome of certain legislative and regulatory issues and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. There can be no assurance that sufficient financing will be available, or that we will be able to renew or refinance existing indebtedness, on desirable terms or at all. If financing is not available when needed or is not available on favorable terms, we and our subsidiaries may be unable to take advantage of business or market opportunities as they arise, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We and our subsidiaries have significant indebtedness, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

As discussed above, as of December 31, 2021, we and our subsidiaries had approximately $3.7 billion principal amount of debt outstanding. As a result of this significant indebtedness, we and our subsidiaries may:

In addition, it is possible that we may need to incur additional indebtedness in the future. For example, at December 31, 2021, we had $1.0 billion remaining available to be drawn until five business days prior to May 12, 2024 under the Margin Loan Agreement and we could issue additional exchangeable senior debentures. If new debt is added to the current debt levels, the risks described above could intensify. For additional limitations on our company’s ability to potentially service our direct debt obligations, see “We are a holding company, and we could be unable to obtain cash in amounts sufficient to service our financial obligations or meet our other commitments” and “Other than cash generated from our participation in Charter’s stock repurchase program, we do not have access to the cash that Charter generates from its operating activities” above.

The agreements that govern our and our subsidiaries’ current and future indebtedness may contain various affirmative and restrictive covenants that will limit our discretion in the operation of our business.

As discussed above, SPV entered into the Margin Loan Agreement pursuant to which SPV had outstanding borrowings of $1.3 billion, with $1.0 billion remaining available to be drawn until five business days prior to May 12, 2024, at December 31, 2021. The Margin Loan Agreement contains various covenants, including those that limit our ability to, among other things, incur indebtedness either directly, through another of our subsidiaries, or by having SPV enter into financing arrangements with respect to the stock of Charter, and cause SPV to enter into unrelated businesses or otherwise conduct business other than owning common stock of Charter and other assets as permitted under the Margin Loan Agreement documents.

Further, the agreements governing our and our subsidiaries’ other indebtedness contain various covenants that could materially and adversely affect our and our subsidiaries’ ability to finance future operations or capital needs and to engage in other business activities that may be in our and their best interest.

Table of Contents

​

We may also enter into certain other indebtedness arrangements in the future. The instruments governing such indebtedness, often contain covenants that, among other things, place certain limitations on a borrowers’ ability to incur more debt, exceed specified leverage ratios, pay dividends, make distributions, make investments, repurchase stock, create liens, enter into transactions with affiliates, merge or consolidate, and transfer or sell assets. Any failure to comply with such covenants could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

​

The various covenants in existing or future indebtedness may restrict our and our subsidiaries’ ability to expand or to pursue business strategies. Our and our subsidiaries’ ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond our and their control, such as prevailing economic conditions and changes in regulations, and if such events occur, we cannot be sure that we and our subsidiaries will be able to comply. A breach of these covenants could result in a default under the indentures and/or the credit agreements. If there were an event of default under the Margin Loan Agreement, the indentures and/or the credit agreements, holders of such defaulted debt could cause all amounts borrowed under these instruments to be due and payable immediately. Additionally, if we or our subsidiaries fail to repay the debt under any secured indebtedness when it becomes due, the lenders under such indebtedness could proceed against the assets that are pledged to them as security. Our and our subsidiaries’ assets or cash flow may not be sufficient to repay borrowings under outstanding debt instruments in the event of a default thereunder.

​

Variable rate indebtedness subjects the Company to interest rate risk, which could cause its debt service obligations to increase significantly.

​

Borrowings under the Margin Loan Agreement and the Senior Credit Facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. If interest rates increase, the Company's debt service obligations on any variable rate indebtedness could increase even though the amount borrowed remained the same, and net income and cash flow could decrease.

​

In addition, the Company’s variable rate indebtedness uses London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”) as a benchmark for establishing the rate. In 2017, the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”), which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to phase out LIBOR. On March 5, 2021, the FCA announced that all LIBOR settings will either cease to be provided by any administrator or no longer be representative: (a) immediately after December 31, 2021, in the case of the one week and two month U.S. dollar settings; and (b) immediately after June 30, 2023, in the case of the remaining U.S. dollar settings. The United States Federal Reserve has also advised banks to cease entering into new contracts that use USD LIBOR as a reference rate. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee, a committee convened by the Federal Reserve that includes major market participants, has identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR, a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative rate for LIBOR. At this time, it is not possible to predict how markets will respond to SOFR or other alternative reference rates as the transition away from the LIBOR benchmarks is anticipated in coming years. Accordingly, the outcome of these reforms is uncertain and any changes in the methods by which LIBOR is determined or regulatory activity related to LIBOR’s phaseout could cause LIBOR to perform differently than in the past or cease to exist. The consequences of these developments cannot be entirely predicted, but could include an increase in the cost of borrowings under the aforementioned debt instruments. Additionally, our Margin Loan Agreement and Senior Credit Facility provide for a transition to a SOFR based rate or to other alternative reference rates depending on acceptance in the market of these rates.

In order to manage the Company's exposure to interest rate risk, in the future, it may enter into derivative financial instruments, typically interest rate swaps and caps, involving the exchange of floating for fixed rate interest payments. If the Company is unable to enter into interest rate swaps, it may adversely affect its cash flow and may impact its ability to make required principal and interest payments on its indebtedness and, even if we use these instruments to selectively manage risks, there can be no assurance that we will be fully protected against material interest rate fluctuations.

Table of Contents

Factors Relating to COVID-19

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could materially affect the financial condition and results of operations of Charter and GCI Holdings.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased economic and demand uncertainty and caused economic disruption. At this time, we cannot predict the duration of any business disruption and the ultimate impact of COVID-19 on the businesses of Charter and GCI Holdings. As a general matter, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased economic and demand uncertainty, and a significant global recession may result. 

​

With respect to Charter, we cannot predict the depth and duration of the economic impact to Charter’s residential and business customers’ ability to pay for its products and services. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of government emergency declarations, the ability of Charter’s suppliers and vendors to provide products and services to it, the pace of new housing construction, the pace of households moving residences, changes in business spend in Charter’s local and national ad sales business, the effects to employees’ health and safety, and resulting reorientation of its work activities and the risk of limitations on the deployment and maintenance of Charter’s services (including by limiting customer support and on-site service repairs and installations).

​

With respect to GCI Holdings, because of the geographic concentration of GCI Holdings’ operations in Alaska, growth of GCI Holdings' business and operations depends upon economic conditions in Alaska, which we expect will continue to be impacted by COVID-19 and the measures taken in Alaska and around the world to address the pandemic. At the end of 2019, the Alaska economy showed signs of emerging from a recession that started in late 2015. However, GCI Holdings expects this recession to continue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. GCI Holdings is unable to predict the depth and duration of the economic impact to its customers’ ability to pay for products and services, even after taking into account the impact of extended unemployment benefits and other stimulus packages and governmental assistance provided to its customers. Historically, recessions have had an adverse impact on its business and could adversely affect the affordability of and demand for some of its products and services and cause customers to shift to lower priced products and services or to delay or forgo purchases of its products and services. GCI Holdings’ customers may not be able to obtain adequate access to credit, which could affect their ability to make timely payments to GCI Holdings. There is a risk that GCI Holdings’ accounts receivable and bad debt expense will increase substantially due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, GCI Holdings is unable to predict the impact to its business from future government emergency declarations, the ability of its suppliers and vendors to provide products and services to GCI Holdings and the risk of limitations on the deployment and maintenance of GCI Holdings’ services, changes in business spend in GCI Holdings’ ad sales business, the effects to employees’ health and safety, and resulting reorientation of its work activities and the risk of limitations on the deployment and maintenance of its services (including by limiting customer support and on-site service repairs and installations).

​

The Alaska economy is dependent upon the oil industry, state government spending, United States military spending, investment earnings and tourism. A decline in oil prices could put significant pressure on the Alaska state government budget. Although Alaska state government has significant reserves that GCI Holdings believes will help fund the state government for the next couple of years, major structural budgetary reforms will be required in order to offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a decline in oil prices. Although GCI Holdings cannot predict the long-term impact COVID-19 will have on these sectors of the Alaska economy, adverse circumstances in these industries may have an adverse impact on the demand for its products and services and on its results of operations and financial condition.

​

Further, the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Charter and GCI Holdings remains fluid and the likelihood of an impact that could be material increases the longer the virus impacts activity levels in the locations in which they operate. Delays in the widespread distribution of vaccines, or lack of public acceptance, could lead people to continue to self-isolate and not participate in the economy at pre-pandemic levels for a prolonged period of time. In addition, new variants of the virus may continue to emerge. Even after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the U.S. economy and other major global economies may experience a prolonged recession, and we anticipate Charter and GCI Holdings could be materially adversely affected by a prolonged recession in the U.S. and other major markets.

​

To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our or Charter’s or GCI Holdings’ respective businesses, financial conditions and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening the other risks described in these Risk Factors, such as those relating to fluctuations in our stock price and the market value of our interests in publicly-traded securities,

Table of Contents

the effect of increases in data usage on GCI Holdings’ wired and wireless networks on network capacity limitations, impairments, our significant level of indebtedness and our ability to generate sufficient cash to service our debt obligations.

Factors Relating to GCI Holdings

Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to the Company or that it currently deems to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect the business operations of GCI Holdings, which the Company refers to as "GCI" in the following risk factors relating to the business of GCI Holdings. Any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

GCI faces competition that may reduce its market share and harm its financial performance.

There is substantial competition in the telecommunications and entertainment industries. Through mergers, various service integration strategies, and business alliances, major providers are striving to strengthen their competitive positions. GCI faces increased wireless services competition from national carriers in the Alaska market and increasing video services competition from DBS providers and over-the-top content providers who are often able to offer more flexible subscription packages and exclusive content.

The Company expects competition to increase as a result of the rapid development of new technologies, services and products, and the availability of increased federal funding of broadband infrastructure. The Company cannot predict which of many possible future technologies, products or services will be important to maintain GCI’s competitive position or what expenditures will be required to develop and provide these technologies, products or services. GCI’s ability to compete successfully will depend on marketing and on its ability to anticipate and respond to various competitive factors affecting the industry, including new services that may be introduced, changes in consumer preferences, economic conditions and pricing strategies by competitors. To the extent GCI does not keep pace with technological advances or fails to timely respond to changes in competitive factors in its industry and in its markets, GCI could lose market share or experience a decline in its revenue and net income. Competitive conditions create a risk of market share loss and the risk that customers shift to less profitable lower margin services. Competitive pressures also create challenges for its ability to grow new businesses or introduce new services successfully and execute its business plan. GCI also faces the risk of potential price cuts by the Company’s competitors partially driven by federal funding for broadband infrastructure that could materially adversely affect its market share and gross margins.

GCI’s wholesale customers including its major roaming customers may construct facilities in locations where they currently contract with GCI to use its network to provide service on their behalf. The Company could experience a decline in revenue and net income if any of GCI’s wholesale customers constructed or expanded their existing networks in places where service is currently provided by GCI’s network. Some of GCI’s wholesale customers have greater access to financial, technical, and other resources than GCI does. GCI expects to continue to offer competitive alternatives to such customers in order to retain significant traffic on GCI’s network. The Company cannot predict whether such customers will continue to see GCI’s network as a compelling alternative. GCI’s inability to negotiate renewals of such contracts could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

If GCI experiences customer losses, the Company’s financial performance will be negatively impacted.

GCI is in the business of selling communications and entertainment services to subscribers, and its economic success is based on its ability to retain current subscribers and attract new subscribers. If GCI is unable to retain and attract subscribers, its and the Company’s financial performance will be impaired. GCI’s rates of subscriber acquisition and turnover are affected by a number of competitive factors including the size of its service areas, network performance and reliability issues, changing technologies including the transition to internet protocol television, its device and service offerings, subscribers’ perceptions of its services, and customer care quality. Managing these factors and subscribers’ expectations is essential in attracting and retaining subscribers. Although GCI has implemented programs to attract new subscribers and address subscriber turnover, the Company cannot assure you that these programs or GCI’s strategies to address subscriber acquisition and turnover will be successful. A high rate of turnover or low or negative rate of new subscriber acquisition would reduce revenue and increase the total marketing expenditures required to attract the minimum number of subscribers required to sustain GCI’s business plan which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

GCI may be unable to obtain or maintain the roaming services it needs from other carriers to remain competitive.

Some of GCI’s competitors have national networks that enable them to offer nationwide coverage to their subscribers at a lower cost than GCI can offer. The networks GCI operates do not, by themselves, provide national coverage and GCI must pay fees to other carriers who provide roaming services to it. GCI currently relies on roaming agreements with several carriers for the majority of its roaming services.

The FCC requires commercial mobile radio service providers to provide roaming, upon request, for voice and SMS text messaging services on just, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The FCC also requires carriers to offer data roaming services. The rules do not provide or mandate any specific mechanism for determining the reasonableness of roaming rates for voice, SMS text messaging or data services and require that roaming complaints be resolved on a case-by-case basis, based on a non-exclusive list of factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of particular conduct or rates. If GCI were to lose the benefit of one or more key roaming or wholesale agreements unexpectedly, it may be unable to obtain similar replacement agreements and as a result may be unable to continue providing nationwide voice and data roaming services for its customers or may be unable to provide such services on a cost-effective basis. GCI’s inability to obtain new or replacement roaming services on a cost-effective basis may limit its ability to compete effectively for wireless customers, which may increase its turnover and decrease its revenue, which in turn could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

GCI’s business is subject to extensive governmental legislation and regulation. Changes to or interpretations of existing statutes, rules, regulations, or the adoption of new ones, could adversely affect GCI’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

As described above in “Item 1. - Business - Regulatory Matters,” GCI’s business is subject to extensive federal and state governmental legislation and regulation. There can be no assurance that future changes or additions to the regulatory system under which GCI operates will benefit or have no adverse effect on GCI. Similarly, these rules and regulations are subject to interpretation by the applicable agencies, and new interpretations, which could impact GCI’s operations and have an adverse effect on GCI’s business, position, results of operations or liquidity. There can be no assurance that future regulatory actions taken by Congress, the FCC or other federal, state or local government authorities will not have a similar effect.

With respect to wireless services provided by GCI, the licensing, construction, operation, sale and interconnection arrangements of wireless communications systems are regulated by the FCC, Alaska, and, potentially other state and local regulatory agencies. In particular, the FCC grants wireless licenses and imposes significant regulation on licensees of wireless spectrum. There can be no guarantee that GCI’s existing licenses will be renewed. In addition, while the FCC does not currently regulate wireless service providers’ rates, states may exercise authority over such things as certain billing practices and consumer-related issues. These regulations could increase the costs of GCI’s wireless operations, including with respect to the maintenance of existing licenses granted by the FCC due to failure to comply with applicable regulations. GCI is also subject to FCC rules relating to E911 capabilities, and failure to comply with these rules could subject GCI to significant fines. With respect to video services provided by GCI, GCI is subject to changes in regulation that could potentially result in rate reductions or refunds of previously collected fees in the future.

With respect to Internet services provided by GCI, GCI would be adversely impacted by the reclassification of Internet service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. In 2015, the FCC classified Internet service as a telecommunication service. The FCC’s implementing regulations prohibited broadband providers from blocking or throttling most lawful public Internet traffic, from engaging in paid prioritization of that traffic, and from unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging end users’ and edge providers’ ability to send traffic to, from, and among each other. Although a 2018 FCC order returned to a Title I classification of Internet service and eliminated many of the requirements imposed in its initial 2015 order, the FCC may seek to re-impose net neutrality requirements or some variation thereof. In addition, Congress and state legislatures may undertake similar efforts. For example, California and Vermont have undertaken such efforts. The Company cannot predict whether the FCC or Congress will re-impose the 2015 rules or some variation thereof. The increased regulatory burden if the 2015 rules were re-imposed likely would increase GCI’s costs and could adversely affect the manner and price of providing service, which could have a material adverse effect on GCI’s business, financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

Table of Contents

USF receivables and contributions are subject to change due to regulatory actions taken by the FCC, including the FCC’s interpretations of the USF program rules, or legislative actions that change the rules and regulations governing the USF program.

GCI participates in various USF programs, which provide government subsidies to customers in low income areas, including schools, libraries and other facilities. This support was 32% and 29% of GCI Holdings’ revenue for the years ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. GCI had USF net receivables of $148 million and $281 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. In addition, the USF programs require GCI, Charter and other telecommunications providers to make contributions, based on certain revenue earned, into a fund used to subsidize the provision of voice services and broadband-capable voice networks in high-cost areas, the provision of voice and broadband services to low-income consumers, and the provision of internet, voice and telecommunications services to schools, libraries and certain health care providers. The USF programs in which GCI participates are highly regulated. While the rules and regulations governing the USF programs are fairly robust, there can be no assurance that any new rules or regulations adopted will not impact GCI’s USF program anticipated receivables or contributions. Further, the FCC and USAC may interpret or apply the applicable rules and regulations in ways that are unexpected to GCI or other program participants. As a result, material changes to receivables and contributions may occur, which could have an adverse effect on GCI’s business and the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. As described above in “Item 1. Business - Regulatory Matters,” GCI has experienced material changes to receivables and contributions from the USF programs in recent years. For example, in October 2018, the Bureau notified GCI of its decision to reduce rural rates charged to RHC customers for the funding year that ended on June 30, 2018 by approximately 26% resulting in a reduction of total support payments of $28 million, and stated that it would apply the same cost methodology going forward. In addition, although the FCC has adjusted the RHC Program funding cap and committed to annual adjustments in future years for inflation, there is no guarantee that aggregate funding will be available to pay in full the approved funding for future years. Furthermore, the FCC has adopted changes to the manner in which support issued under the RHC Program will be calculated and approved, and GCI is currently unable to assess the substance, impact on funding or timing of these changes. Although, GCI has sought FCC review of certain FCC actions regarding the RHC Program, the outcome is uncertain.

Failure to comply with USF program requirements may have an adverse effect on GCI’s business and the Company’s financial position.

The USF programs in which GCI participates are highly regulated, and, in many cases, require highly technical and nuanced processes and procedures in order to obtain funding and to ensure compliance with the USF programs. For example, telecommunication providers and their customers are subject to regulations that set forth procedures that must be followed by both the provider and the customer, and there are limitations on communications between these parties. If a customer or a provider is found to have not complied with any aspect of these regulations, regardless of whether such noncompliance was unintentional or accidental, the FCC may deny funding and/or require disgorgement of any amounts received under the affected contracts. The FCC may also invalidate any affected contract and impose fines or penalties. Accordingly, failure to comply with these rules and regulations could have a material adverse effect on GCI’s business and the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. As described in note 14 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company accrued a loss of approximately $12 million resulting from a review of certain active and expired RHC Program contracts where it has identified potential compliance issues. Although the FCC has been made aware of the potential RHC Program compliance issues, there can be no assurance that the FCC will not impose penalties or fines that would be additive to any required disgorgement or denial of funding. Further, no assurance can be given that any novated contracts will be replicated subsequently, which may affect future revenue.

Loss of GCI’s ETC status would disqualify it for USF support.

The USF pays support to ETCs to support the provision of facilities-based wireline and wireless telephone service in high cost areas. If GCI were to lose its ETC status in any of the study areas where it is currently an authorized ETC whether due to legislative or regulatory reform or its failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, GCI would be ineligible to receive high cost or low income USF support for providing service in that area, which would have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

GCI may not meet its performance plan milestones under the Alaska High Cost Order.

As an ETC, GCI receives support from the USF to support the provision of wireline local access and wireless service in high cost areas. In 2016, the FCC published the Alaska High Cost Order which requires GCI to submit to the FCC a performance plan with five-year and ten-year commitments. If GCI is unable to meet the final performance plan milestones approved by the

Table of Contents

FCC it will be required to repay 1.89 times the average amount of support per location received over the ten-year term for the relevant number of locations that GCI failed to deploy to, plus ten percent of its total Alaska High Cost Order support received over the ten-year term. Inability to meet GCI’s performance plan milestones could have an adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

GCI may lose USF high cost support if another carrier adds 4G LTE service in an area where it currently provides 4G LTE service.

Under the Alaska High Cost Order, the FCC adopted a process for revisiting after five years whether and to what extent there is duplicative support for 4G LTE service in rural Alaska and to take steps to eliminate such duplicative support levels in the second half of the ten-year term. As a result, if another carrier builds 4G LTE service in an area where GCI is the sole provider and the FCC decides to redistribute the support then GCI’s high cost support may be reduced, which could have an adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Programming expenses for GCI’s video services are increasing, which could adversely affect the Company’s business.

The Company expects programming expenses for GCI’s video services to continue to increase in the foreseeable future. The multichannel video provider industry has continued to experience an increase in the cost of programming, especially sports programming and costs to retransmit local broadcast stations. As GCI’s contracts with content providers expire, there can be no assurance that they will be renewed on acceptable terms or that they will be renewed at all, in which case GCI may be unable to provide such content as part of its video services and the Company’s business could be adversely affected. If GCI adds programming to its video services or if GCI chooses to distribute existing programming to its customers through additional delivery platforms, GCI may incur increased programming expenses. If GCI is unable to raise its customers’ rates or offset such programming cost increases through the sale of additional services, the increasing cost of programming could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations.

The decline in GCI’s voice services’ results of operations, which include long-distance and local access services, may accelerate.

The Company expects GCI’s voice services’ results of operations, which include long-distance and local access services, will continue to decline. As competition from wireless carriers, such as GCI, increases the Company expects GCI’s long-distance and local access services’ subscribers and revenue will continue to decline and the rate of decline may accelerate.

In addition, GCI’s success in the local telephone market depends on its continued ability to obtain interconnection, access and related services from local exchange carriers on terms that are reasonable and that are based on the cost of providing these services. GCI’s ability to provide service in the local telephone market depends on its negotiation or arbitration with local exchange carriers to allow interconnection to the carrier’s existing local telephone network (in some Alaska markets at cost-based rates), to establish dialing parity, to obtain access to rights-of-way, to resell services offered by the local exchange carrier, and in some cases, to allow the purchase, at cost-based rates, of access to certain unbundled network elements. Future negotiations or arbitration proceedings with respect to new or existing markets could result in a change in GCI’s cost of serving these markets via the facilities of the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers or via wholesale offerings. GCI’s local telephone services business faces the risk of unfavorable changes in regulation or legislation or the introduction of new regulations.

Failure to stay abreast of new technology could affect GCI’s ability to compete in the industry.

GCI tests and deploys various new technologies and support systems intended to enhance its competitiveness and increase the utility of its services. As GCI’s operations grow in size and scope, it must continuously improve and upgrade its systems and infrastructure while maintaining or improving the reliability and integrity of its systems and infrastructure. The emergence of alternative platforms such as mobile or tablet computing devices and the emergence of niche competitors who may be able to optimize products, services or strategies for such platforms will require new investment in technology. Further, current and new wireless internet technologies such as 4G and 5G wireless broadband services continue to evolve rapidly to allow for greater speed and reliability, and the Company expects other advances in communications technology to occur in the future. GCI may not successfully complete the rollout of new technology and related features or services in a timely manner, and they may not be widely accepted by GCI’s customers or may not be profitable, in which case GCI could not recover its investment in the technology. There can be no assurance that GCI will be able to compete with advancing technology or introduce new technologies

Table of Contents

and systems as quickly as it would like or in a cost effective manner. Deployment of technology supporting new service offerings may also adversely affect the performance or reliability of its networks with respect to both the new and existing services. Any resulting customer dissatisfaction could affect GCI’s ability to retain customers and may have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. In addition to introducing new technologies and offerings, GCI must phase out outdated and unprofitable technologies and services. If GCI is unable to do so on a cost-effective basis, GCI could experience reduced profits.

GCI’s operations are geographically concentrated in Alaska and are impacted by the economic conditions in Alaska, and GCI may not be able to continue to increase its share of the existing market for its services.

​

As described above in “The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic could materially affect the financial condition and results of operations of Charter and GCI Holdings,” GCI offers products and services to customers primarily throughout Alaska. Because of this geographic concentration, growth of GCI’s business and operations depends upon economic conditions in Alaska, which have been negatively impacted in recent years by a recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, the customer base in Alaska is limited and GCI has already achieved significant market penetration with respect to its service offerings in Anchorage and other locations in Alaska. GCI may not be able to continue to increase its share of the existing markets for its services, and no assurance can be given that the Alaskan economy will grow and increase the size of the markets GCI serves or increase the demand for the services it offers. The markets in Alaska for wireless and wireline telecommunications and video services are unique and distinct within the United States due to Alaska’s large geographical size, its sparse population located in a limited number of clusters, and its distance from the rest of the United States. The expertise GCI has developed in operating its businesses in Alaska may not provide GCI with the necessary expertise to successfully enter other geographic markets.

Natural or man-made disasters or terrorist attacks could have an adverse effect on GCI’s business.

GCI’s technical infrastructure (including its communications network infrastructure and ancillary functions supporting its network such as service activation, billing and customer care) is vulnerable to damage or interruption from technology failures, power surges or outages, natural disasters, fires, human error, terrorism, intentional wrongdoing or similar events. As a communications provider, there is an increased risk that GCI’s technological infrastructure may be targeted in connection with terrorism or cyberattacks, either as a primary target, or as a means of facilitating additional attacks on other targets.

In addition, earthquakes, floods, fires and other unforeseen natural disasters or events could materially disrupt GCI’s business operations or its provision of service in one or more markets. Specifically, the majority of GCI’s facilities are located in areas with known significant seismic activity. Costs GCI incurs to restore, repair or replace its network or technical infrastructure, as well as costs associated with detecting, monitoring or reducing the incidence of unauthorized use, may be substantial and increase GCI’s cost of providing service. Many of the areas in which GCI operates have limited emergency response services and may be difficult to reach in an emergency situation. Should a natural disaster or other event occur, it could be weeks or longer before remediation efforts could be implemented, if they could be implemented at all. Further, any failure in or interruption of systems that GCI or third parties maintain to support ancillary functions, such as billing, point of sale, inventory management, customer care and financial reporting, could materially impact GCI’s ability to timely and accurately record, process and report information important to the Company’s business. If any of the above events were to occur, GCI could experience higher churn, reduced revenue and increased costs, any of which could harm its reputation and have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Additionally, the Company’s insurance may not be adequate to cover the costs associated with a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Cyberattacks or other network disruptions could have an adverse effect on the Company and GCI’s business.

Through the Company’s operations, sales and marketing activities, it collects and stores certain non-public personal information related to its customers. The Company also gathers and retains information about employees in the normal course of business. The Company may share information about such persons with vendors, contractors and other third-parties that assist with certain aspects of its business. In addition, the Company’s operations depend upon the transmission of information over the Internet. Unauthorized parties may attempt to gain access to the Company or its vendors’ computer systems by, among other

Table of Contents

things, hacking into its systems or those of third parties, through fraud or other means of deceiving the Company’s employees or its vendors, burglaries, errors by the Company or its vendors’ employees, misappropriation of data by employees, or other irregularities that may result in persons obtaining unauthorized access to its data. The techniques used to gain such access to the Company’s or its vendors’ technology systems, data or customer information, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems are constantly evolving, may be difficult to detect quickly, and often are not recognized until launched against a target.

Cyberattacks against GCI’s or the Company’s vendors’ technological infrastructure or breaches of network information technology may cause equipment failures, disruption of its or their operations, and potentially unauthorized access to confidential customer or employee data, which could subject the Company to increased costs and other liabilities as discussed further below. Cyberattacks, which include the use of malware, computer viruses, and other means for service disruption or unauthorized access to confidential customer or employee data, have increased in frequency, scope, and potential harm for businesses in recent years. It is possible for such cyberattacks to go undetected for an extended period of time, increasing the potential harm to GCI’s or the Company’s respective customers, employees, assets, and reputation.

To date, GCI has not been subject to cyberattacks or network disruptions that, individually or in the aggregate, have been material to GCI’s operations or financial condition. Although GCI has not detected a material security breach or cybersecurity incident to date, it has been the target of events of this nature and expects to be subject to similar attacks in the future. GCI engages in a variety of preventive measures at an increased cost to GCI, in order to reduce the risk of cyberattacks and safeguard its infrastructure and confidential customer information, but as with all companies, these measures may not be sufficient for all eventualities and there is no guarantee that they will be adequate to safeguard against all cyberattacks, system compromises or misuses of data. Such measures include, but are not limited to the following industry best practices: application whitelisting, anti-malware, message and spam filtering, encryption, advanced firewalls, threat detection, and URL filtering. Despite these preventive and detective actions, GCI’s efforts may be insufficient to repel a major cyberattack or network disruption in the future and prevent the risks described above.

Some of the most significant risks to GCI’s information technology systems, networks, and infrastructure include:

If hackers or cyberthieves gain improper access to GCI’s technology systems, networks, or infrastructure, they may be able to access, steal, publish, delete, misappropriate, modify or otherwise disrupt access to confidential customer or employee data. Moreover, additional harm to customers or employees could be perpetrated by third parties who are given access to the confidential customer data. A network disruption (including one resulting from a cyberattack) could cause an interruption or degradation of service and diversion of management attention, as well as permit access, theft, publishing, deletion, misappropriation, or modification to or of confidential customer data. Due to the evolving techniques used in cyberattacks to disrupt or gain unauthorized access to technology networks, GCI may not be able to anticipate or prevent such disruption or unauthorized access.

The costs imposed on GCI as a result of a cyberattack or network disruption could be significant. Among others, such costs could include increased expenditures on cyber security measures, litigation, regulatory actions, fines, sanctions, lost revenue from business interruption, and damage to the public’s perception regarding GCI’s ability to provide a secure service. As a result, a cyberattack or network disruption could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, and operating results. GCI also faces similar risks associated with security breaches affecting third parties with which it is affiliated or otherwise conduct business. While GCI maintains cyber liability insurance that provides both third-party liability and first-party insurance coverage, its insurance may not be sufficient to protect against all of its losses from any future disruptions or breaches of its systems or other events as described above.

Table of Contents

Increases in data usage on GCI’s wired and wireless networks may cause network capacity limitations, resulting in service disruptions, reduced capacity or slower transmission speeds for GCI’s customers.

Video streaming services and peer-to-peer file sharing applications use significantly more bandwidth than traditional Internet activity such as web browsing and email. As use of these services continues to grow, GCI’s customers will likely use more bandwidth than in the past. Additionally, new wireless handsets and devices may place a higher demand for data on GCI’s wireless network. If this occurs, GCI could be required to make significant capital expenditures to increase network capacity in order to avoid service disruptions, service degradation or slower transmission speeds for its customers. Alternatively, GCI could choose to implement network management practices to reduce the network capacity available to bandwidth-intensive activities during certain times in market areas experiencing congestion, which could negatively affect its ability to retain and attract customers in affected areas. While the Company believes demand for these services may drive customers to pay for faster speeds, competitive or regulatory constraints may preclude GCI from recovering the costs of the necessary network investments which could result in an adverse impact to its business, financial condition, and operating results.

Prolonged service interruptions or system failures could affect GCI’s business.

GCI relies heavily on its network equipment, communications providers, data and software to support all of its functions. GCI relies on its networks and the networks of others for substantially all of its revenue. GCI is able to deliver services and serve its customers only to the extent that it can protect its network systems against damage from power or communication failures, computer viruses, natural disasters, unauthorized access and other disruptions. While GCI endeavors to provide for failures in the network by providing back-up systems and procedures, GCI cannot guarantee that these back-up systems and procedures will operate satisfactorily in an emergency. Disruption to its billing systems due to a failure of existing hardware and backup protocols could have an adverse effect on the Company’s revenue and cash flow. Should GCI experience a prolonged failure, it could seriously jeopardize its ability to continue operations. In particular, should a significant service interruption occur, GCI’s ongoing customers may choose a different provider, and its reputation may be damaged, reducing its attractiveness to new customers.

If failures occur in GCI’s undersea fiber optic cable systems or GCI’s TERRA facilities and its extensions, GCI’s ability to immediately restore the entirety of GCI’s service may be limited and the Company could incur significant costs.

GCI’s communications facilities include undersea fiber optic cable systems that carry a large portion of its traffic to and from the contiguous lower 48 states, one of which provides an alternative geographically diverse backup communication facility to the other. GCI’s facilities also include TERRA and its extensions some of which are unringed, operating in a remote environment and are at times difficult to access for repairs. Damage to an undersea fiber optic cable system or TERRA and its extensions could result in significant unplanned expense. For example, in January 2020, a fiber break occurred in GCI’s TERRA ring in Alaska’s Cook Inlet. Although service was not materially affected and has since been fully restored, and the financial impact was not significant, full functionality was not restored until March 2020 due to the uniquely challenging environmental conditions in the location of the fiber break. If a failure of both sides of the ring of GCI’s undersea fiber optic facilities or GCI’s ringed TERRA facility and its unringed extensions occurs and GCI is not able to secure alternative facilities, some of the communications services GCI offers to its customers could be interrupted, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

If a failure occurs in GCI’s satellite communications systems, GCI’s ability to immediately restore the entirety of its service may be limited.

GCI’s communications facilities include satellite transponders that GCI uses to serve many rural and remote Alaska locations. Each of GCI’s C-band and Ku-band satellite transponders are backed up using on-board transponder redundancy. In the event of a complete spacecraft failure the services are restored using capacity on other spacecraft that are held in reserve. If a failure of GCI’s satellite transponders occurs and GCI is not able to secure alternative facilities, some of the communications services GCI offers to its customers could be interrupted which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Table of Contents

GCI depends on a limited number of third-party vendors to supply communications equipment. If GCI does not obtain the necessary communications equipment, GCI will not be able to meet the needs of its customers.

GCI depends on a limited number of third-party vendors to supply wireless, Internet, video and other telephony-related equipment. If GCI’s providers of this equipment are unable to timely supply the equipment necessary to meet GCI’s needs or provide them at an acceptable cost, GCI may not be able to satisfy demand for its services and competitors may fulfill this demand. Due to the unique characteristics of the Alaska communications markets (i.e., remote locations, rural, satellite-served, low density populations, and the Company’s leading edge services and products), in many situations GCI deploys and utilizes specialized, advanced technology and equipment that may not have a large market or demand. GCI’s vendors may not succeed in developing sufficient market penetration to sustain continuing production and may fail. Vendor bankruptcy, or acquisition without continuing product support by the acquiring company, may require GCI to replace technology before its otherwise useful end of life due to lack of on-going vendor support and product development.

The suppliers and vendors on which GCI relies may also be subject to litigation with respect to technology on which GCI depends, including litigation involving claims of patent infringement. Such claims have been growing rapidly in the communications industry. The Company is unable to predict whether GCI’s business will be affected by any such litigation. The Company expects GCI’s dependence on key suppliers to continue as they develop and introduce more advanced generations of technology. The failure of GCI’s key suppliers to provide products or product support could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, and results of operations.

GCI does not have insurance to cover certain risks to which it is subject, which could lead to the occurrence of uninsured liabilities.

As is typical in the communications industry, GCI is self-insured for damage or loss to certain of its transmission facilities, including its buried, undersea and above-ground fiber optic cable systems. If GCI becomes subject to substantial uninsured liabilities due to damage or loss to such facilities, the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity may be adversely affected.

GCI uses a third-party vendor for its customer billing systems. Any errors, cyber-attacks or other operational disruption could have adverse operational, financial and reputational effects on the Company’s business.

GCI’s third-party billing services vendor may experience errors, cyber-attacks or other operational disruptions that could negatively impact GCI and over which GCI may have limited control. Interruptions and/or failure of this billing services system could disrupt GCI’s operations and impact its ability to provide or bill for its services, retain customers, or attract new customers, and negatively impact overall customer experience. Any occurrence of the foregoing could cause material adverse effects on the Company’s operations and financial condition, material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting and reputational damage.

Any significant impairment of GCI’s indefinite-lived intangible assets would lead to a reduction in its net operating performance and a decrease in its assets.

​

GCI had $1.3 billion of indefinite-lived intangible assets at December 31, 2021, consisting of goodwill of $762 million, cable certificates of $550 million and other intangibles of $37 million. Goodwill represents the excess of cost over fair value of net assets acquired in connection with business acquisitions and represents the future economic benefits expected to arise from other intangible assets acquired that do not qualify for separate recognition. GCI’s cable certificates represent agreements with government entities to construct and operate a video business. GCI’s wireless licenses are from the FCC and give it the right to provide wireless service within a certain geographical area. 

​

If GCI makes changes in its business strategy or if market or other conditions adversely affect its operations, it may be forced to record an impairment charge, which would lead to a decrease in its assets and a reduction in its net operating performance. GCI’s indefinite-lived intangible assets are tested annually for impairment during the fourth quarter and at any time upon the occurrence of certain events or substantive changes in circumstances that indicate the assets might be impaired. If the testing performed indicates that impairment has occurred, GCI is required to record an impairment charge for the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of the goodwill and/or the indefinite-lived intangible assets, as appropriate, in the period in which the determination is made. The testing of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment requires

Table of Contents

GCI to make significant estimates about its future performance and cash flows, as well as other assumptions. These estimates can be affected by numerous factors, including changes in economic, industry or market conditions, changes in underlying business operations, future operating performance, changes in competition, or changes in technologies. Any changes to key assumptions, or actual performance compared with those assumptions, about GCI’s business and its future prospects or other assumptions could affect the fair value, resulting in an impairment charge.

Factors Relating to Charter

The following risks relate specifically to our equity affiliate Charter. If any of these risks were realized, they could have a material adverse effect on the value of our equity interest in Charter, which could negatively impact our stock price and our financial prospects.

Charter operates in a very competitive business environment, which affects its ability to attract and retain customers and can adversely affect its business, operations and financial results.

The industry in which Charter operates is highly competitive and has become more so in recent years. In some instances, Charter competes against companies with fewer regulatory burdens, access to better financing and greater and more favorable brand name recognition. Increasing consolidation in the telecommunications and content industries have provided additional benefits to certain of Charter’s competitors, either through access to financing, resources, or efficiencies of scale including the ability to launch new video services.

Charter’s Internet service faces competition from the phone companies’ FTTH, FTTN, fixed wireless broadband, Internet delivered via satellite and DSL services. Various operators offer wireless Internet services delivered over networks which they continue to enhance to deliver faster speeds and also continue to expand 5G mobile services. Charter’s voice and mobile services compete with wireless and wireline phone providers, as well as other forms of communication, such as text, instant messaging, social networking services, video conferencing and email. Competition from these companies, including intensive marketing efforts with aggressive pricing and exclusive programming may have an adverse impact on Charter’s ability to attract and retain customers.

Charter’s video service faces competition from a number of sources, including DBS services, and companies that deliver linear network programming, movies and television shows on demand and other video content over broadband Internet connections to televisions, computers, tablets and mobile devices, often with password sharing among multiple users and security that makes content susceptible to piracy. Newer products and services, particularly alternative methods for the distribution, sale and viewing of content will likely continue to be developed, further increasing the number of competitors that Charter faces.

The increasing number of choices available to audiences, including low-cost or free choices, could negatively impact not only consumer demand for Charter’s products and services, but also advertisers’ willingness to purchase advertising from Charter. Charter competes for the sale of advertising revenue with television networks and stations, as well as other advertising platforms, such as online media, radio and print. Competition related to Charter’s service offerings to businesses continues to increase as well, as more companies deploy more fiber to more buildings, which may negatively impact Charter’s growth and/or put pressure on margins.

Charter’s failure to effectively anticipate or adapt to new technologies and changes in customer expectations and behavior could significantly adversely affect its competitive position with respect to the leisure time and discretionary spending of its customers and, as a result, affect its business and results of operations. Competition may also reduce its expected growth of future cash flows which may contribute to future impairments of Charter’s franchises and goodwill and Charter’s ability to meet cash flow requirements, including debt service requirements.

Charter depends on third party service providers, suppliers and licensors; thus, if it is unable to procure the necessary services, equipment, software or licenses on reasonable terms and on a timely basis, its ability to offer services could be impaired, and Charter’s growth, operations, business, financial results and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Charter depends on a limited number of third party service providers, suppliers and licensors to supply some of the services, hardware, software and operational support necessary to provide some of its services. Some of Charter’s hardware, software and operational support vendors, and service providers represent its sole source of supply or have, either through contract

Table of Contents

or as a result of intellectual property rights, a position of some exclusivity. Charter’s ability to provide some services might be materially adversely affected, or the need to procure or develop alternative sources of the affected materials or services might interrupt or delay its ability to serve its customers, if any of these parties experience or engage in the following:

Charter’s third-party service providers, suppliers and licensors have been disrupted by worker absenteeism, quarantines, restrictions on employees’ ability to work, office and factory closures, disruptions to ports and other shipping infrastructure, border closures, or other travel or health-related restrictions. Furthermore, an extended duration of the COVID-19 pandemic could result in significant disruptions in Charter’s supply chain. For example, quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, travel restrictions and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, could impact the availability or productivity of personnel at third-party supply manufacturers, distributors, freight carriers and other necessary components of Charter’s supply chain.  In addition, the existence of only a limited number of vendors of key technologies can lead to less product innovation and higher costs. These events could materially and adversely affect Charter’s ability to retain and attract customers and its operations, business, financial results and financial condition.

Programming costs per video customer are rising at a fast rate, and Charter may not have the ability to reduce or moderate the growth rates of, or pass on to its customers, its increasing programming costs, which would adversely affect its cash flow and operating margins.

Video programming has been, and is expected to continue to be, Charter’s largest operating expense item. Media corporation and broadcast station group consolidation has resulted in fewer suppliers and additional selling power on the part of programming suppliers. Charter expects programming rates per video customer will continue to increase due to a variety of factors including annual increases imposed by programmers with additional selling power as a result of media and broadcast station groups consolidation, increased demands by owners of broadcast stations for payment for retransmission consent or linking carriage of other services to retransmission consent, and additional programming, particularly new services. The inability to fully pass programming cost increases on to its customers has had, and is expected in the future to have, an adverse impact on Charter’s cash flow and operating margins associated with the video product. Programming contracts often restrict the structure of the video packages Charter offers which impacts the affordability and competitive positioning of its video service. The contracts set to expire in any particular year vary. There can be no assurance that these agreements will be renewed on favorable or comparable terms.

In addition, a number of programmers have begun to sell their services through alternative distribution channels, including IP-based platforms, which are less secure than Charter’s video distribution platforms. There is growing evidence that these less secure video distribution platforms are leading to video product theft via password sharing among consumers. Password sharing may drive down the number of customers who pay for certain programming, putting programmer revenue at risk, and which in turn may cause certain programmers to seek even higher programming fees from Charter. The ability for consumers to receive the same content for free through such unauthorized channels has devalued Charter’s video product which could impact sales, customer retention and Charter’s ability to pass through programming costs to consumers, which increases the risk of non-renewal when programmers seek increases. To the extent that Charter is unable to reach agreement with certain programmers on terms that it believes are reasonable, Charter has been, and may be in the future, forced to remove such programming channels from its line-up, which may result in a loss of customers. Charter’s failure to carry programming that is attractive to its customers could adversely impact Charter’s customer levels, operations and financial results.

Table of Contents

Increased demands by owners of some broadcast stations for carriage of other services or payments to those broadcasters for retransmission consent are likely to further increase Charter’s programming costs. Federal law allows commercial television broadcast stations to make an election between “must-carry” rights and an alternative “retransmission-consent” regime. When a station opts for the retransmission-consent regime, Charter is not allowed to carry the station’s signal without that station’s permission. In some cases, Charter carries stations under short-term arrangements while it attempts to negotiate new long-term retransmission agreements. If negotiations with these programmers prove unsuccessful, they could require Charter to cease carrying their signals, possibly for an indefinite period. Any loss of stations could make Charter’s video service less attractive to customers, which could result in less subscription and advertising revenue. In retransmission-consent negotiations, broadcasters often condition consent with respect to one station on carriage of one or more other stations or programming services in which they or their affiliates have an interest. Carriage of these other services, as well as increased fees for retransmission rights, may increase Charter’s programming expenses and diminish the amount of capacity it has available to introduce new services, which could have an adverse effect on its business and financial results.

Charter’s inability to respond to technological developments and meet customer demand for new products and services could adversely affect its ability to compete effectively.

Charter operates in a highly competitive, consumer-driven and rapidly changing environment. From time to time, Charter may pursue strategic initiatives to launch products or enhancements to its products. Charter’s success is, to a large extent, dependent on its ability to acquire, develop, adopt, upgrade and exploit new and existing technologies to address consumers’ changing demands and distinguish its services from those of its competitors. Charter may not be able to accurately predict technological trends or the success of new products and services. If Charter chooses technologies or equipment that are less effective, cost-efficient or attractive to customers than those chosen by its competitors, if technologies or equipment on which Charter has chosen to rely cease to be available to it on reasonable terms or conditions, if Charter offers services that fail to appeal to consumers, are not available at competitive prices or that do not function as expected, or Charter is not able to fund the expenditures necessary to keep pace with technological developments, or if Charter is no longer able to make its services available to its customers on a third-party device on which a substantial number of customers have relied to access its services, its competitive position could deteriorate, and its business and financial results could suffer.

The ability of some of Charter’s competitors to introduce new technologies, products and services more quickly than Charter does may adversely affect its competitive position. Furthermore, advances in technology, decreases in the cost of existing technologies or changes in competitors’ product and service offerings may require Charter 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 that Charter currently offers to customers separately or at a premium. In addition, the uncertainty of Charter’s ability, and the costs, to obtain intellectual property rights from third parties could impact its ability to respond to technological advances in a timely and effective manner.

Charter’s inability to maintain and expand its upgraded systems and provide advanced services in a timely manner, or to anticipate the demands of the marketplace, could materially adversely affect Charter’s ability to attract and retain customers. In addition, as Charter continues to grow its mobile services using virtual network operator rights from a third party, Charter expects continued growth-related sales and marketing and other customer acquisition costs as well as negative working capital impacts from the timing of device-related cash flows when Charter provides the devices pursuant to equipment installation plans. Charter also continues to consider and pursue opportunities in the mobile space which may include the acquisition of additional licensed spectrum and may include entering into or expanding joint ventures or partnerships with wireless or cable providers which may require significant investment. For example, Charter now holds CBRS PALs to support existing and future mobile services. These licenses are subject to revocation and expiration. Although Charter expects to be able to maintain and renew these licenses, the loss of one or more licenses could significantly impair its ability to offload mobile traffic and achieve cost reductions. If Charter is unable to continue to grow its mobile business and achieve the outcomes it expects from its investments in the mobile business, Charter’s growth, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

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

Charter 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 Charter’s intellectual property rights in technology and the products and services used in its operations. Also, because of the rapid pace of technological change, Charter both develops its own technologies, products and services and relies on technologies developed or licensed by third parties. However,

Table of Contents

any of Charter’s intellectual property rights, or the rights of its suppliers, could be challenged or invalidated, or such intellectual property rights may not be sufficient to permit Charter 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. Charter may not be able to obtain or continue to obtain licenses from these third parties on reasonable terms, if at all. In addition, claims of intellectual property infringement could require Charter 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 Charter to change its business practices or offerings and limit its ability to compete effectively. Even unsuccessful claims can be time-consuming and costly to defend and may divert management’s attention and resources away from Charter’s business. Infringement claims continue to be brought frequently in the communications and entertainment industries, and Charter is also often a party to such litigation alleging that certain of its services or technologies infringe the intellectual property rights of others.

Various events could disrupt or result in unauthorized access to Charter’s networks, information systems or properties and could impair its operating activities and negatively impact Charter’s reputation and financial results.

Network and information systems technologies are critical to Charter’s operating activities, both for its internal uses, such as network management and supplying services to Charter’s customers, including customer service operations and programming delivery. Network or information system shutdowns or other service disruptions caused by events such as computer hacking, phishing, dissemination of computer viruses, worms and other destructive or disruptive software, “cyber attacks” such as ransomware, process breakdowns, denial of service attacks and other malicious activity pose increasing risks. Both unsuccessful and successful “cyber attacks” on companies have continued to increase in frequency, scope and potential harm in recent years. While Charter develops and maintains systems seeking to prevent systems-related events and security breaches from occurring, the development and maintenance of these systems is costly and requires ongoing monitoring and updating as techniques used in such attacks become more sophisticated and change frequently. Charter, and the third parties on which Charter relies, may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventive measures. While from time to time attempts have been made to access Charter’s network, these attempts have not as yet resulted in any material release of information, degradation or disruption to its network and information systems.

Charter’s network and information systems are also vulnerable to damage or interruption from power outages, telecommunications failures, accidents, natural disasters (including extreme weather arising from short-term or any long-term changes in weather patterns), terrorist attacks and similar events. Charter’s system redundancy may be ineffective or inadequate, and Charter’s disaster recovery planning may not be sufficient for all eventualities.

Any of these events, if directed at, or experienced by, Charter or technologies upon which Charter depends, could have adverse consequences on Charter’s network, customers and business, including degradation of service, service disruption, excessive call volume to call centers, and damage to Charter’s or its customers' equipment and data. Large expenditures may be necessary to repair or replace damaged property, networks or information systems or to protect them from similar events in the future. Moreover, the amount and scope of insurance that Charter maintains against losses resulting from any such events or security breaches may not be sufficient to cover Charter’s losses or otherwise adequately compensate Charter for any disruptions to its business that may result. Any such significant service disruption could result in damage to Charter’s reputation and credibility, customer dissatisfaction and ultimately a loss of customers or revenue. Any significant loss of customers or revenue, or significant increase in costs of serving those customers, could adversely affect Charter’s growth, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, Charter’s operating activities could be subject to risks caused by misappropriation, misuse, leakage, falsification or accidental release or loss of information maintained in its information technology systems and networks and those of its third-party vendors, including customer, personnel and vendor data. Charter provides certain confidential, proprietary and personal information to third parties in connection with its business, and there is a risk that this information may be compromised.

Charter processes, stores and transmits large amounts of data, including the personal information of its customers. Ongoing increases in the potential for mis-use of personal information, the public’s awareness of the importance of safeguarding personal information, and the volume of legislation that has been adopted or is being considered regarding the protection, privacy and security of personal information have resulted in increases to Charter’s information-related risks. Charter could be exposed to significant costs if such risks were to materialize, and such events could damage Charter’s reputation, credibility and business and have a negative impact on its revenue. Charter could be subject to regulatory actions and claims made by consumers in

Table of Contents

private litigations involving privacy issues related to consumer data collection and use practices. Charter also could be required to expend significant capital and other resources to remedy any such security breach.

Charter’s exposure to the economic conditions of its current and potential customers, vendors and third parties could adversely affect its cash flow, results of operations and financial condition.

Charter is exposed to risks associated with the economic conditions of its current and potential customers, the potential financial instability of its customers and their financial ability to purchase its products. If there were a general economic downturn, Charter may experience increased cancellations or non-payment by its customers or unfavorable changes in the mix of products purchased. This may include an increase in the number of homes that replace their video service with Internet-delivered and/or over-air content, as well as an increase in the number of Internet and voice customers substituting mobile data and voice products for wireline services which would negatively impact Charter’s ability to attract customers, increase rates and maintain or increase revenue. In addition, Charter’s ability to gain new customers is dependent to some extent on growth in occupied housing in its service areas, which is influenced by both national and local economic conditions. Weak economic conditions may also have a negative impact on Charter’s advertising revenue. These events have adversely affected Charter in the past, and may adversely affect its cash flow, results of operations and financial condition if a downturn were to occur.

In addition, Charter is susceptible to risks associated with the potential financial instability of the vendors and third parties on which Charter relies to provide products and services or to which it outsources certain functions. The same economic conditions that may affect Charter’s customers, as well as volatility and disruption in the capital and credit markets, also could adversely affect vendors and third parties and lead to significant increases in prices, reduction in output or the bankruptcy of Charter’s vendors or third parties upon which Charter relies. Any interruption in the services provided by Charter’s vendors or by third parties could adversely affect Charter’s cash flow, results of operation and financial condition.

If Charter is unable to retain key employees, its ability to manage its business could be adversely affected.

Charter’s operational results have depended, and its future results will depend, upon the retention and continued performance of its management team. Charter’s ability to retain and hire new key employees for management positions could be impacted adversely by the competitive environment for management talent in the broadband communications and technology industries. The loss of the services of key members of management and the inability or delay in hiring new key employees could adversely affect Charter’s ability to manage its business and its future operational and financial results.

Charter has a significant amount of debt and expects to incur significant additional debt, including secured debt, in the future, which could adversely affect its financial health and its ability to react to changes in its business.

Charter has a significant amount of debt and expects to (subject to applicable restrictions in its debt instruments) incur additional debt in the future as Charter maintains its stated objective of 4.0 to 4.5 times Adjusted EBITDA leverage (net debt divided by the last twelve months Adjusted EBITDA). As of December 31, 2021, Charter’s total principal amount of debt was approximately $91.2 billion with a leverage ratio of 4.4 times Adjusted EBITDA.

Charter’s significant amount of debt could have consequences, such as:

Table of Contents

To the extent Charter’s current debt amounts increase more than expected, Charter’s business results are lower than expected, or credit rating agencies downgrade its debt limiting its access to investment grade markets, the related risks that Charter now faces will intensify.

In addition, Charter’s variable rate indebtedness may use LIBOR as a benchmark for establishing the rate. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, stopped publishing one week and 2 month U.S. Dollar (“USD”) LIBOR rates after 2021 with remaining USD LIBOR rates ceasing to be published on June 30, 2023 (the “FCA Announcement”). In the United States, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee has proposed the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) as an alternative to LIBOR. It is not presently known whether SOFR or any other alternative reference rates that have been proposed will attain market acceptance as replacements of LIBOR. In addition, the overall financial markets may be disrupted as a result of the phase-out or replacement of LIBOR. Uncertainty as to the nature of such phase out and selection of an alternative reference rate, together with disruption in the financial markets, could increase in the cost of Charter’s variable rate indebtedness.

The agreements and instruments governing Charter’s debt contain restrictions and limitations that could significantly affect its ability to operate its business, as well as significantly affect its liquidity.

Charter’s credit facilities and the indentures governing its debt contain a number of significant covenants that could adversely affect Charter’s ability to operate its business, its liquidity, and its results of operations. These covenants restrict, among other things, Charter’s and Charter’s subsidiaries’ ability to:

Additionally, the Charter Communications Operating, LLC (“Charter Operating”) credit facilities require Charter Operating to comply with a maximum total leverage covenant and a maximum first lien leverage covenant. The breach of any covenants or obligations in Charter’s indentures or credit facilities, not otherwise waived or amended, could result in a default under the applicable debt obligations and could trigger acceleration of those obligations, which in turn could trigger cross defaults under other agreements governing Charter’s long-term indebtedness. In addition, the secured lenders under Charter’s notes and the Charter Operating credit facilities could foreclose on their collateral, which includes equity interests in substantially all of Charter’s subsidiaries, and exercise other rights of secured creditors.

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

Regulation of the cable industry has increased cable operators’ operational and administrative expenses and limited their revenue. Cable operators are subject to numerous laws and regulations including those covering the following:

Table of Contents

Legislators and regulators at all levels of government frequently consider changing, and sometimes do change, existing statutes, rules, regulations, or interpretations thereof, or prescribe new ones. Any future legislative, judicial, regulatory or administrative actions may increase Charter’s costs or impose additional restrictions on Charter’s businesses.

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

There are ongoing efforts to amend or expand the federal, state, and local regulation of some of the services offered over Charter’s cable systems, particularly its retail broadband Internet access service. Potential legislative and regulatory changes could adversely impact its business by increasing costs and competition and limiting Charter’s ability to offer services in a manner that that would maximize its revenue potential. These changes could include, for example, the reclassification of Internet services as regulated telecommunications services; restrictions on how Charter manages its Internet access services and networks; the adoption of new privacy restrictions on its collection, use and disclosure of certain customer information; new data security and cybersecurity mandates that could result in additional network and information security requirements for Charter’s business; new restraints on Charter’s discretion over programming decisions; new restrictions on the rates Charter charges to consumers for one or more of the services it offers; changes to the cable industry’s compulsory copyright license to carry broadcast signals; new requirements to assure the availability of navigation devices from third-party providers; new Universal Service Fund obligations on Charter’s provision of Internet service that would add to the cost of that service; increases in government-administered broadband subsidies to rural areas that could result in subsidized overbuilding of its more rural facilities; changes to the FCC's administration of spectrum; and changes in the regulatory framework for VoIP telephone service, including the scope of regulatory obligations associated with Charter’s VoIP telephone service and its ability to interconnect its VoIP telephone service with incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications service.

As a winning bidder in the FCC’s RDOF auction in 2020, Charter must comply with numerous FCC and state requirements prior to and after receiving such funding. To comply with these RDOF program requirements, Charter has chosen in the RDOF areas to offer certain of its VoIP telephone services, such as its federal or state Lifeline services, subject to traditional federal and state common carrier regulations. Additionally, in the RDOF areas, Charter will offer certain of its broadband Internet access services subject to required discounts and other marketing-related terms. If Charter fails to comply with those requirements, the FCC could consider Charter in default of the RDOF program rules, and Charter could incur substantial penalties or forfeitures. For example, if Charter fails to attain certain specified infrastructure build-out requirements under the RDOF program, the FCC could withhold future support payments until those shortcomings are corrected. Charter’s failure to comply with the rules and requirements for the RDOF program could result in being suspended or disbarred from future governmental programs or contracts for a significant period of time, which could adversely affect its results of operations and financial condition.

If any laws or regulations are enacted that would expand the regulation of Charter’s services, they could affect Charter’s operations and require significant expenditures. Charter cannot predict future developments in these areas, and any changes to the regulatory framework for Charter’s Internet, video, mobile or VoIP services could have a negative impact on its business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

It remains uncertain what rule changes, if any, will ultimately be adopted by Congress and the FCC and what operating or financial impact any such rules might have on Charter, including on its programming agreements, customer privacy and the user experience. In addition, the FCC, the FTC, and various state agencies and attorney general actively investigate industry practices and could impose substantial forfeitures for alleged regulatory violations.

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

Charter operates cable systems in locations throughout the United States and, as a result, is subject to the tax laws and regulations of federal, state and local governments. From time to time, legislative and administrative bodies change laws and regulations that change Charter’s effective tax rate or tax payments. Certain states and localities have imposed or are considering imposing new or additional taxes or fees on Charter’s services or changing the methodologies or base on which certain fees and taxes are computed. Potential changes include additional taxes or fees on Charter’s services which could impact its customers, changes to income tax sourcing rules and other changes to general business taxes, central/unit-level assessment of property taxes and other matters that could increase Charter’s income, franchise, sales, use and/or property tax liabilities. For example, some local franchising authorities have imposed franchise fee assessments on Charter’s broadband Internet access service (in addition to Charter’s video service), and more may do so in the future. If challenges to such assessments are unsuccessful, it could adversely impact Charter’s costs. Although the FCC issued a decision precluding the imposition of such duplicative fees, that favorable decision is currently subject to judicial review. In addition, federal, state and local tax laws and regulations are extremely complex and subject to varying interpretations. There can be no assurance that Charter’s tax positions will not be challenged by relevant tax authorities or that it would be successful in any such challenge.

Charter’s cable system franchises are subject to non-renewal or termination and are non-exclusive. The failure to renew a franchise or the grant of additional franchises in one or more service areas could adversely affect its business.

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

There can be no assurance that Charter will be able to comply with all significant provisions of its franchise agreements and certain of its franchisers have from time to time alleged that Charter has not complied with these agreements. Additionally, although historically Charter has renewed its franchises without incurring significant costs, there can be no assurance that Charter will be able to renew, or to renew as favorably, its franchises in the future. A termination of or a sustained failure to renew a franchise in one or more service areas could adversely affect Charter’s business in the affected geographic area.

Charter’s cable system franchises are non-exclusive. Consequently, local and state franchising authorities can grant additional franchises to competitors in the same geographic area or operate their own cable systems. In some cases, local government entities and municipal utilities may legally compete with Charter on more favorable terms.

Factors Relating to our Common Stock and the Securities Market

We expect our stock price to continue to be directly affected by the results of operations of Charter and developments in its business.

The fair value of our investment in Charter, on an as-converted basis, was approximately $34.8 billion as of December 31, 2021, which represents a meaningful portion of our total market value. As a result, our stock price will continue to be directly affected by the results of operations of Charter and the developments in its business.

Table of Contents

Although our Series B common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets, there is no meaningful trading market for the stock.

Our Series B common stock is not widely held, with approximately 93% of the outstanding shares beneficially owned by John C. Malone, the Chairman of the Board and a director of our company as of January 31, 2022. Although it is quoted on the OTC Markets, it is sparsely traded and does not have an active trading market. The OTC Markets tend to be highly illiquid, in part, because there is no national quotation system by which potential investors can track the market price of shares except through information received or generated by a limited number of broker-dealers that make markets in particular stocks. There is also a greater chance of market volatility for securities that trade on the OTC Markets as opposed to a national exchange or quotation system. This volatility is due to a variety of factors, including a lack of readily available price quotations, lower trading volume, absence of consistent administrative supervision of "bid" and "ask" quotations, and market conditions. Each share of the Series B common stock is convertible, at any time at the option of the holder, into one share of our Series A common stock, which is listed and traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol "LBRDA."

It may be difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so may be beneficial to our stockholders.

Certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company that a stockholder may consider favorable. These provisions include the following:

In addition, John C. Malone currently beneficially owns shares representing the power to direct approximately 49% of the aggregate voting power in our company, due to his beneficial ownership of approximately 93% of the outstanding shares of our Series B common stock as of January 31, 2022.

Holders of a single series of our common stock may not have any remedies if an action by our directors has an adverse effect on only that series of our common stock.

Principles of Delaware law and the provisions of our certificate of incorporation may protect decisions of our board of directors that have a disparate impact upon holders of any single series of our common stock. Under Delaware law, the board of directors has a duty to act with due care and in the best interests of all of our stockholders, including the holders of all series of our common stock. Principles of Delaware law established in cases involving differing treatment of multiple classes or series of stock provide that a board of directors owes an equal duty to all common stockholders regardless of class or series and does not have separate or additional duties to any group of stockholders. As a result, in some circumstances, our directors may be required

Table of Contents

to make a decision that is viewed as adverse to the holders of one series of our common stock. Under the principles of Delaware law and the business judgment rule, holders may not be able to successfully challenge decisions that they believe have a disparate impact upon the holders of one series of our stock if our board of directors is disinterested and independent with respect to the action taken, is adequately informed with respect to the action taken and acts in good faith and in the honest belief that the board is acting in the best interest of all of our stockholders.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Liberty Broadband

In connection with the Broadband Spin-Off, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty entered into a facilities sharing agreement with Liberty Broadband, pursuant to which Liberty Broadband shares office facilities with Liberty located at 12300 Liberty Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado, 80112.

GCI Holdings

GCI Holdings’ properties do not lend themselves to description by location of principal units. The majority of GCI Holdings’ properties are located in Alaska.

GCI Holdings leases most of its executive, corporate and administrative facilities and business offices. GCI Holdings’ operating, executive, corporate and administrative properties are in good condition. GCI Holdings considers its properties suitable and adequate for its present needs.

GCI Holdings’ properties consist primarily of undersea and terrestrial fiber optic cable networks, switching equipment, satellite transponders and earth stations, microwave radio, cable and wire facilities, cable head-end equipment, wireless towers and equipment, coaxial distribution networks, connecting lines (aerial, underground and buried cable), routers, servers, transportation equipment, computer equipment, general office equipment, land, land improvements, landing stations and other buildings. See note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements found in Part II of this report for additional information on its properties. Substantial amounts of GCI Holdings’ properties are located on or in leased real property or facilities. Substantially all of GCI Holdings’ properties secure the Senior Credit Facility. See note 8 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements found in Part II of this report for additional information on the Senior Credit Facility.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Litigation Relating to the Combination

Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al.

On October 9, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by two purported GCI Liberty stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al., Case No. 2020-0880. A new version of the complaint was filed on October 11, 2020. The complaint named as defendants GCI Liberty, as well as the members of the GCI Liberty board of directors. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Gregory B. Maffei, a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Broadband and, prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, and Mr. John C. Malone, the Chairman of the board of directors of Liberty Broadband and, prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, in their purported capacities as controlling stockholders and directors of GCI Liberty, and the other directors of GCI Liberty, breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Combination. The complaint also alleged that various prior and current relationships among members of the GCI Liberty special committee, Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei rendered the members of the GCI Liberty special committee not independent.

The complaint sought certification of a class action, declarations that Messrs. Maffei and Malone and the other directors of GCI Liberty breached their fiduciary duties and the recovery of damages and other relief.

Table of Contents

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which, among other things, included a new count of breach of fiduciary duty against Mr. Maffei and Mr. Gregg Engles, the other former member of the GCI Liberty special committee, and new allegations that the price of GCI Liberty was depressed as a result of statements and omissions by Mr. Maffei in November of 2019. During the first quarter of 2021, the parties were conducting discovery with the trial scheduled for November 2021. We believed the lawsuit was without merit.

During March 2021 and in advance of the expenditure of significant time and costs to conduct the depositions proposed to have been taken in this action, the parties began negotiations with the class of plaintiffs for a potential settlement of this action. On May 5, 2021, the plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and other members of a proposed settlement class) and defendants entered into an agreement in principle to settle the litigation pursuant to which the parties agreed that the plaintiffs will dismiss their claims with prejudice, with customary releases, in return for a settlement payment of $110 million to be paid by Merger LLC (as successor-by-merger to GCI Liberty, Inc.) and/or insurers for the defendants and for GCI Liberty.

On June 17, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release. On June 30, 2021, the Court preliminarily certified, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed settlement, the action as a non-opt out class action on behalf of a settlement class consisting of all holders of GCI Liberty Series A common stock as of December 18, 2020. The Court set a settlement hearing for October 5, 2021, to determine whether to permanently certify the class, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the settlement class, and whether to enter a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, among other things. On October 18, 2021, subsequent to that hearing, the Court issued a final order permanently certifying the Class and approving the settlement. The Court also awarded Plaintiffs’ Counsel $22 million in attorneys’ fees, which shall be paid out of the settlement fund. Plaintiffs also requested that the Court issue an additional fee award, which Defendant opposed, not to be paid out of the settlement fund, in connection with a certain claim that was mooted earlier in the case (a “mootness fee”). On November 8, 2021, the Court awarded Plaintiffs’ Counsel a $9 million mootness fee, which Defendant subsequently paid.

Charter and Liberty Broadband - Delaware Litigation

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions involving Charter, TWC, Advance/Newhouse Partnership, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015. The lawsuit, which named as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter and the board of directors of Charter, alleged that the transactions resulted from breaches of fiduciary duty by Charter’s directors and that Liberty Broadband improperly benefited from the challenged transactions at the expense of other Charter stockholders. Charter and Liberty Broadband deny any liability, believe that they have substantial defenses, and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Other Charter Proceedings

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While Charter is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) filed a patent suit against Charter and Bright House on December 2, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit alleges infringement of 9 patents related to Charter’s provision of VoIP services. Sprint previously sued TWC with respect to eight of these patents and obtained a final judgment of $151 million inclusive of interest and costs, which Charter paid in November 2019. Charter has also brought a patent suit against Sprint (TC Tech, LLC v. Sprint) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware implicating Sprint's LTE technology and a similar suit against T-Mobile in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Sprint filed a subsequent patent suit against Charter on May 17, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This suit alleges infringement of two patents related to Charter's video on demand services. The court transferred this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on December 20, 2018 pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

Table of Contents

On February 18, 2020, Sprint filed a lawsuit against Charter, Bright House and TWC. Sprint alleges that Charter misappropriated trade secrets from Sprint years ago through employees hired by Bright House. Sprint asserts that the alleged trade secrets relate to the VoIP business of Charter, TWC and Bright House. The case is now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

Charter, T-Mobile and Sprint have tentatively reached a settlement of all of the foregoing suits that would result in a payment of $220 million by Charter to T-Mobile. Charter can give no assurance that this tentative settlement will be finalized. Pending finalization of the settlement and in the event the settlement is not finalized, Charter will vigorously defend these Sprint suits and prosecute the suits it has brought against T-Mobile and Sprint. While Charter is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it does not expect that the litigation will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

In addition to the Sprint litigation described above, Charter is a defendant or co-defendant in several additional lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various intellectual property relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases or related cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that Charter infringes on any intellectual property, Charter may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require Charter or its vendors to modify certain products and services it offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the intellectual property at issue. While Charter believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to Charter’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Charter cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Charter is party to other lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting its business. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against Charter or its subsidiaries cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on our or Charter’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity, such lawsuits could have in the aggregate a material adverse effect on ours or Charter’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. Whether or not Charter ultimately prevails in any particular lawsuit or claim, litigation can be time consuming and costly and injure its reputation.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

​

​

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our Series A and Series C common stock trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbols “LBRDA” and “LBRDK,” respectively. Our Series B common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets under the symbol “LBRDB”, but it is not actively traded. Stock price information for securities traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market can be found on the Nasdaq’s website at www.nasdaq.com.

The following table sets forth the quarterly range of high and low sales prices of our Series B common stock for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020. There is no established public trading market for our Series B common stock, which is quoted on the OTC Markets. Such over-the-counter market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices without dealer mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions, and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

​

Holders

As of January 31, 2022, there were 659, 81 and 2,155 holders of our Series A, Series B and Series C common stock, respectively. The foregoing numbers of record holders do not include the number of stockholders whose shares are held nominally by banks, brokerage houses or other institutions, but include each such institution as one shareholder.

Dividends

We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock, and we have no present intention of so doing. Payment of cash dividends, if any, in the future will be determined by our board of directors in light of our earnings, financial condition and other relevant considerations.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

Information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

On February 23, 2021, the board of directors authorized the repurchase of $2.23 billion of Liberty Broadband Series A and Series C common stock. Additionally, on August 5, 2021, the board of directors authorized the repurchase of an additional $2.105 billion of Liberty Broadband Series A and Series C common stock. Further, on January 26, 2022, a duly authorized

Table of Contents

committee of the board of directors authorized the repurchase of an additional $2.215 billion of Liberty Broadband Series A and Series C common stock.

A summary of the repurchase activity for the three months ended December 31, 2021 is as follows:

There were no repurchases of Liberty Broadband Series B common stock or Liberty Broadband Preferred Stock during the three months ended December 31, 2021.

During the three months ended December 31, 2021, 179 shares of Liberty Broadband Series A common stock, zero shares of Liberty Broadband Series B common stock, 29,735 shares of Series C common stock and 4,091 shares of Liberty Broadband Preferred Stock were surrendered by our officers and employees to pay withholding taxes and other deductions in connection with the vesting of their restricted stock, restricted stock units and options.

Item 6. [Reserved]

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis provides information concerning our results of operations and financial condition. This discussion should be read in conjunction with our accompanying consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto.

Overview

Liberty Broadband Corporation (“Liberty Broadband,” “the Company,” “us,” “we,” or “our”) is primarily comprised of GCI Holdings, LLC (“GCI Holdings”) (as of December 18, 2020), a wholly owned subsidiary, and an equity method investment in Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”).

During May 2014, the board of directors of Liberty Media Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Liberty”) authorized management to pursue a plan to spin-off to its stockholders common stock of a wholly-owned subsidiary, Liberty Broadband, and to distribute subscription rights to acquire shares of Liberty Broadband’s common stock (the “Broadband Spin-Off”).

On December 18, 2020, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 6, 2020, entered into by GCI Liberty, Inc. (“GCI Liberty”), Liberty Broadband, Grizzly Merger Sub 1, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband (“Merger LLC”), and Grizzly Merger Sub 2, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Merger LLC (“Merger Sub”), Merger Sub merged with and into GCI Liberty (the “First Merger”), with GCI Liberty surviving the First Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband (the “Surviving Corporation”), and immediately following the First Merger, GCI Liberty (as the Surviving Corporation in the First Merger) merged with and into Merger LLC (the “Upstream Merger”, and together with the First Merger, the “Combination”), with Merger LLC surviving the Upstream Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Broadband.

As a result of the Combination, each holder of a share of Series A common stock and Series B common stock of GCI Liberty received 0.58 of a share of Series C common stock and Series B common stock, respectively, of Liberty Broadband. Additionally, each holder of a share of Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of GCI Liberty received one share of newly issued Liberty Broadband Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, which has substantially identical terms to

Table of Contents

GCI Liberty’s former Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, including a mandatory redemption date of March 9, 2039. Cash was paid in lieu of issuing fractional shares of Liberty Broadband stock in the Combination. No shares of Liberty Broadband stock were issued with respect to (x) shares of GCI Liberty capital stock held by (i) GCI Liberty as treasury stock, (ii) any of GCI Liberty’s wholly owned subsidiaries or (iii) Liberty Broadband or its wholly owned subsidiaries or (y) shares of GCI Liberty Series B Common Stock held by any stockholders who perfected and did not waive, effectively withdraw or lost their appraisal rights pursuant to Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

Through a number of prior years’ transactions, including the Combination, Liberty Broadband has acquired an interest in Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”). Liberty Broadband controls 25.01% of the aggregate voting power of Charter.

During the first quarter of 2021, as a result of the closing of the Combination on December 18, 2020, Skyhook Holding, Inc. (“Skyhook”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is no longer significant to the Company and has been included in Corporate and other for presentation purposes. The revised segment reporting structure includes the following reportable segments: (1) GCI Holdings and (2) Charter. All prior period segment disclosure information has been reclassified to conform to the current reporting structure. These reclassifications had no effect on our consolidated financial statements in any period.

Strategies and Challenges

Executive Summary

GCI Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, provides a full range of wireless, data, video, voice, and managed services to residential customers, businesses, governmental entities, and educational and medical institutions primarily in Alaska under the GCI brand. 

Charter is a leading broadband connectivity company and cable operator serving more than 32 million customers in 41 states through its Spectrum brand. Over an advanced high-capacity, two-way telecommunications network, Charter offers a full range of state-of-the-art residential and business services including Spectrum Internet, TV, Mobile and Voice. For small and medium-sized companies, Spectrum Business delivers the same suite of broadband products and services coupled with special features and applications to enhance productivity, while for larger businesses and government entities, Spectrum Enterprise provides highly customized, fiber-based solutions. Spectrum Reach delivers tailored advertising and production for the modern media landscape. Charter also distributes award-winning news coverage, sports and high-quality original programming to its customers through Spectrum Networks and Spectrum Originals. At December 31, 2021, Liberty Broadband owned approximately 53.4 million shares of Charter Class A common stock, representing an approximate 30.9% economic ownership interest in Charter’s issued and outstanding shares.

Key Drivers of Revenue

GCI Holdings earns revenue from the monthly fees customers pay for wireless, data, video, voice and managed services. Through close coordination of its customer service and sales and marketing efforts, its customer service representatives suggest to its customers other services they can purchase or enhanced versions of services they already purchase to achieve increased revenue and penetration of its multiple service offerings.

Charter’s revenue is principally derived from the monthly fees customers pay for services it provides. Charter also earns revenue from one-time installation fees and advertising sales. Charter’s marketing organization creates and executes marketing programs intended to grow customer relationships, increase the number of services they sell per relationship, retain existing customers and cross-sell additional products to current customers.

Current Trends Affecting Our Business

GCI Holdings and Charter must stay abreast of rapidly evolving technological developments and offerings to remain competitive and increase the utility of their products and services. These companies must be able to incorporate new technologies into their products and services in order to address the needs of their customers.

Table of Contents

GCI Holdings

GCI Holdings offers wireless and wireline telecommunication services, data services, video services, and managed services to customers primarily throughout Alaska. Because of this geographic concentration, growth of GCI Holdings’ business and operations depends upon economic conditions in Alaska. In December 2019, Chinese officials reported a novel coronavirus outbreak. COVID-19 has since spread through China and internationally. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization assessed COVID-19 as a global pandemic, causing many countries throughout the world to take aggressive actions, including imposing travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders, closing public attractions and restaurants, and mandating social distancing practices, which has caused a significant disruption to most sectors of the economy.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted Alaska, GCI Holdings has continued to deliver services uninterrupted by the pandemic and expects to be able to continue to respond to the increase in network activity. As a major provider of Internet services in Alaska, GCI Holdings believes it plays an instrumental role in enabling social distancing through telecommuting and e-learning across the state and remains focused on its service to customers, as well as the health and safety of its employees and customers.

The majority of GCI Holdings’ workforce has transitioned to working at home full time and it expects to keep those employees working from home through at least May 2022.

GCI Holdings cannot predict the ultimate impact of COVID-19 on its business, including the depth and duration of the economic impact to its customers’ ability to pay for products and services including the impact of extended unemployment benefits and other stimulus packages and what assistance may be provided to its customers. There is a risk that GCI Holdings’ accounts receivable and bad debt expense will increase substantially due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of government emergency declarations, the ability of suppliers and vendors to provide products and services to GCI Holdings and the risk of limitations on the deployment and maintenance of its services.

The Alaska economy is dependent upon the oil industry, state and federal spending, investment earnings and tourism. A decline in oil prices would put significant pressure on the Alaska state government budget. Although the Alaska state government has significant reserves that GCI Holdings believes will help fund the state government for the next couple of years, major structural budgetary reforms will be required in order to offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a decline in oil prices. Although GCI Holdings cannot predict the long-term impact COVID-19 will have on these sectors of the Alaska economy, adverse circumstances in these industries may have an adverse impact on the demand for its products and services and on its results of operations and financial condition.

The Alaska economy is in a recession that started in late 2015 and has continued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is difficult for GCI Holdings to predict the future impact of a renewed or continuing recession on its business, these conditions have had an adverse impact on its business and could adversely affect the affordability of and demand for some of its products and services and cause customers to shift to lower priced products and services or to delay or forgo purchases of its products and services. Additionally, GCI Holdings’ customers may not be able to obtain adequate access to credit, which could affect their ability to make timely payments to GCI Holdings. If that were to occur, GCI Holdings could be required to increase its allowance for credit losses, and the number of days outstanding for its accounts receivable could increase. If the recession continues, it could negatively affect GCI Holdings’ business including its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity, as well as its ability to service debt, pay other obligations and enhance shareholder returns.

Rural Health Care (“RHC”) Program

GCI Holdings receives support from various Universal Service Fund ("USF") programs including the RHC Program. The USF programs are subject to change by regulatory actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), interpretations of or compliance with USF program rules, or legislative actions. Changes to any of the USF programs that GCI Holdings participates in could result in a material decrease in revenue and accounts receivable, which could have an adverse effect on GCI Holdings' business and the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. The following paragraphs describe certain separate matters related to the RHC Program that impact or could impact the revenue earned and receivables recognized by the Company. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had net accounts receivable from the RHC Program in the amount of approximately $120 million, which is included within Trade and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets.

Table of Contents

FCC Rate Reduction. In November 2017, the Universal Service Administrative Company ("USAC") requested further information in support of the rural rates charged to a number of GCI Holdings' RHC customers in connection with the funding requests for the year that runs July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. On October 10, 2018, GCI Holdings received a letter from the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) notifying it of the Bureau’s decision to reduce the rural rates charged to RHC customers for the funding year that ended on June 30, 2018 by approximately 26% resulting in a reduction of total support payments of $28 million. The FCC also informed GCI Holdings that the same cost methodology used for the funding year that ended on June 30, 2018 would be applied to rates charged to RHC customers in subsequent funding years. In response to the Bureau’s letter, GCI Holdings filed an Application for Review with the FCC.

On October 20, 2020, the Bureau issued two separate letters approving the cost-based rural rates GCI Holdings historically applied when recognizing revenue for services provided to its RHC customers for the funding years that ended on June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2020. GCI Holdings collected approximately $175 million in accounts receivable relating to these two funding years during the year ended December 31, 2021. GCI Holdings also filed an Application for Review of these determinations. Subsequently, GCI identified rates for similar services provided by a competitor that would justify higher rates for certain GCI satellite services in the funding years that ended on June 30, 2018, June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2020. GCI submitted that information to the Bureau on September 7, 2021. The Applications for Review remain pending.

On June 25, 2020, GCI Holdings submitted cost studies with respect to a number of its rates for services provided to its RHC customers for the funding year ended June 30, 2021, which require approval by the Bureau. GCI Holdings further updated those studies on November 12, 2020, to reflect the completion of the bidding season for that funding year. On May 24, 2021, the FCC approved the cost studies submitted by GCI Holdings for the funding year ended June 30, 2021. Subsequently, on August 16, 2021, GCI submitted a request for approval of rates for 17 additional sites, which remains pending.

RHC Program Funding Cap. The RHC program has a funding cap for each individual funding year that is annually adjusted for inflation, and which the FCC can increase by carrying forward unused funds from prior funding years. In recent years, including the current year, this funding cap has not limited the amount of funding received by participants; however, management continues to monitor the funding cap and its potential impact on funding in future years.

Enforcement Bureau and Related Inquiries. On March 23, 2018, GCI Holdings received a letter of inquiry and request for information from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC relating to the period beginning January 1, 2015 and including all future periods, to which it is in the process of responding. This includes inquiry into the rates charged by GCI Holdings, and presently it is unable to assess the ultimate outcome of this rate inquiry. Other aspects related to the Enforcement Bureau’s review of GCI Holdings’ compliance with program rules are discussed separately below. The ongoing uncertainty in program funding, as well as the uncertainty associated with the rate review, could have an adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, GCI Holdings became aware of potential RHC Program compliance issues related to certain of GCI Holdings’ currently active and expired contracts with certain of its RHC customers. The Company and its external experts performed significant and extensive procedures to determine whether GCI Holdings’ currently active and expired contracts with its RHC customers would be deemed to be in compliance with the RHC Program rules.  GCI Holdings notified the FCC of the potential compliance issues in the fourth quarter of 2019.  

On May 28, 2020, GCI Holdings received a second letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau in the same matter noted above. This second letter, which was in response to a voluntary disclosure made by GCI Holdings to the FCC, extended the scope of the original inquiry to also include various questions regarding compliance with the records retention requirements related to the (i) original inquiry and (ii) RHC Program.

On December 17, 2020, GCI Holdings received a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the FCC’s Office of the Inspector General requiring production of documents from January 1, 2009 to the present related to a single RHC customer and related contracts, information regarding GCI Holdings’ determination of rural rates for a single customer, and to provide information regarding persons with knowledge of pricing practices generally.

On April 21, 2021, representatives of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) informed GCI Holdings that a qui tam action has been filed in the Western District of Washington arising from the subject matter under review by the Enforcement Bureau. The DOJ is investigating whether GCI Holdings submitted false claims and/or statements in connection with GCI’s participation in the FCC’s RHC Program. On July 14, 2021, the DOJ issued a Civil Investigative Demand with regard to the qui tam action.

Table of Contents

​

GCI Holdings continues to work with the FCC and the DOJ to resolve all enforcement inquiries discussed above. With respect to the ongoing inquiries from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and the FCC’s Office of the Inspector General, GCI Holdings recognized a liability of approximately $12 million in 2019 for contracts that were deemed probable of not complying with the RHC Program rules. GCI Holdings also identified certain contracts where additional loss was reasonably possible and such loss could range from zero to $44 million. An accrual was not made for the amount of the reasonably possible loss in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance. GCI Holdings could also be assessed fines and penalties but such amounts could not be reasonably estimated. With respect to the ongoing inquiries from the DOJ regarding the qui tam action, the Company is unable to assess the ultimate outcome of this action given the confidentiality of the qui tam process and is unable to determine whether any type of fine or penalty would ultimately be assessed as is permitted under the applicable law.

Revision of Support Calculations. On August 20, 2019, the FCC released an order changing the manner in which support issued under the RHC Program will be calculated and approved. Some of these changes will become effective beginning with the funding year ended June 30, 2021, while others will apply beginning with the funding year ending June 30, 2022. On October 21, 2019, GCI Holdings appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On December 6, 2019, that appeal was held in abeyance for nine months due to pending Petitions for Reconsideration filed by other parties at the FCC and on September 25, 2020, the period of abeyance was extended through March 8, 2021. At the direction of the FCC, USAC has released a database that purports to determine a median rate which will cap the amount of support available for each service sold under the program, starting in the funding year ending June 30, 2022. GCI Holdings has sought FCC review of various aspects of the database implementation. On September 30, 2020, USAC released a refreshed version of the database incorporating limited changes submitted by interested parties. On January 19, 2021, the Bureau issued an Order that waives the requirement to use the database for health care providers in Alaska for the two funding years ending June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2023. The Order requires GCI Holdings to determine its rural rates based on previously approved rates or under reinstitution of the rules currently in effect through the funding year ended on June 30, 2021. On April 8, 2021, the Bureau issued an Order further extending the January 19, 2021 waiver to carriers nationwide and eliminating the ability or requirement to use the database to establish the healthcare provider payments for services subsidized by the RHC Telecom Program.

Charter

Charter faces intense competition for residential customers, both from existing competitors and, as a result of the rapid development of new technologies, services and products, from new entrants. With respect to its residential business, Charter competes with other providers of video, high-speed Internet access, telephone and mobile services, and other sources of home entertainment. Charter’s principal competitors for video services are DBS service providers, as well as virtual multichannel video programming distributors such as Hulu Live, YouTube TV, Sling TV, Philo and DirecTV Stream. Charter’s principal competitors for high-speed Internet services are the broadband services provided by companies, including fiber-to-the-home, fiber-to-the-node, fixed wireless broadband, Internet delivered via satellite and DSL services. A growing number of commercial areas, such as retail malls, restaurants and airports, offer WiFi Internet service. Numerous local governments are also considering or actively pursuing publicly subsidized WiFi Internet access networks. These options offer alternatives to cable-based Internet access. Charter’s principal competitors for voice and mobile services are other mobile and wireline phone providers, as well as other forms of communication, such as text messaging over cellular phones, instant messaging, social networking services, video conferencing and email. The increase in the number of different technologies capable of carrying voice services and the number of alternative communication options available to customers as well as the replacement of wireline services by wireless have intensified the competitive environment in which Charter operates its residential voice service.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted how Charter’s customers use its products and services, how they interact with Charter, and how Charter’s employees provide services to its customers. Customer activity levels remain below normal which contributed to lower operating expense from reduced service transactions and lower bad debt in 2021, along with lower growth in customer relationships. Charter cannot predict when trends return to pre-COVID-19 levels as the economy returns to normal activities.

Although the ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, Charter remains focused on driving customer relationship growth by deploying superior products and services with attractive pricing. In October 2021, Charter announced and implemented new Spectrum Mobile multi-line pricing designed to drive more mobile line sales per customer, and in turn, drive more broadband sales and the associated retention benefits. Further, Charter expects to continue to drive customer relationship growth through sales of Internet connectivity services and improving customer retention despite the expectation for continued losses of video and wireline voice customers.

Table of Contents

Results of Operations—Consolidated

General.   We provide information regarding our consolidated operating results and other income and expenses, as well as information regarding the contribution to those items from our reportable segments in the tables below. The "Corporate and other" category consists of those assets or businesses which do not qualify as a separate reportable segment. See note 15 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for more discussion regarding our reportable segments. GCI Holdings’ results are only included in the Company’s consolidated results beginning on December 18, 2020. For a more detailed discussion and analysis of GCI Holdings’ results, see "Results of Operations – GCI Holdings, LLC" below.

Operating Results