Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company’s payment obligations as of December 31, 2014 for its contractual obligations.



		Total		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019		Thereafter

Contractual Obligations
Capital and Operating Lease Obligations (1)		$	169	$	43	$	39	$	35	$	25	16		$	11
Programming Minimum Commitments (2)		795		271		256		235		9		10		14
Other (3)		319		291		16		9		3		—		—

	Total	$	1,283	$	605	$	311	$	279	$	37	$	26	$	25

(1) The Company leases certain facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. Leases and rental costs charged to expense for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 were $43 million, $34 million, $28 million, respectively.

(2) The Company pays programming fees under multi-year contracts ranging from three to ten years, typically based on a flat fee per customer, which may be fixed for the term, or may in some cases escalate over the term. Programming costs included in the accompanying statement of operations were $2.5 billion, $2.1 billion and $2.0 billion for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 respectively. Certain of the Company’s programming agreements are based on a flat fee per month or have guaranteed minimum payments. The table sets forth the aggregate guaranteed minimum commitments under the Company’s programming contracts.

(3) “Other” represents other guaranteed minimum commitments, which consist primarily of commitments to the Company's customer premise equipment vendors.

The following items are not included in the contractual obligation table due to various factors discussed below. However, the Company incurs these costs as part of its operations:


•	The Company rents utility poles used in its operations. Generally, pole rentals are cancelable on short notice, but the Company anticipates that such rentals will recur. Rent expense incurred for pole rental attachments for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 was $49 million, $49 million, and $47 million, respectively.

•

The Company pays franchise fees under multi-year franchise agreements based on a percentage of revenues generated from video service per year. The Company also pays other franchise related costs, such as public education grants, under multi-year agreements. Franchise fees and other franchise-related costs included in the accompanying statement of operations were $208 million, $190 million, and $176 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 respectively.


•	The Company also has $85 million in letters of credit, primarily to its various worker’s compensation, property and casualty, and general liability carriers, as collateral for reimbursement of claims.

Litigation

The Montana Department of Revenue ("Montana DOR") generally assesses property taxes on cable companies at 3% and on telephone companies at 6%. Historically, Bresnan's cable and telephone operations have been taxed separately by the Montana DOR. In 2010, the Montana DOR assessed Bresnan as a single telephone business and retroactively assessed it as such for 2007 through 2009. Bresnan filed a declaratory judgment action against the Montana DOR in Montana State Court challenging its property tax classifications for 2007 through 2010. The Montana State Court issued decisions in favor of Bresnan. The Montana DOR filed a notice of appeal to the Montana Supreme Court on September 20, 2012. On December 2, 2013, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. On June 19, 2014, the parties settled this dispute. For tax years 2007 through 2009, Charter reduced Bresnan acquisition liabilities by approximately $8 million with the offset to goodwill, and operating expenses were reduced by approximately $3 million for post-acquisition tax years.

The Company is a defendant or co-defendant in several lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property rights, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the patents at issue. While the Company 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 the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

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

Regulation in the Cable Industry

The operation of a cable system is extensively regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), some state governments and most local governments. The FCC has the authority to enforce its regulations through the imposition of substantial fines, the issuance of cease and desist orders and/or the imposition of other administrative sanctions, such as the revocation of FCC licenses needed to operate certain transmission facilities used in connection with cable operations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 altered the regulatory structure governing the nation’s communications providers. It removed barriers to competition in both the cable television market and the telephone market. Among other things, it reduced the scope of cable rate regulation and encouraged additional competition in the video programming industry by allowing telephone companies to provide video programming in their own telephone service areas. Future legislative and regulatory changes could adversely affect the Company’s operations.