In the normal course of business, we have entered into agreements that commit our company to make cash payments in future periods with respect to network and connectivity commitments, programming contracts, purchases of customer premises and other equipment and services, non-cancellable operating leases and other items. The following table sets forth the U.S. dollar equivalents of such commitments as of June 30, 2017:



	Payments due during:
	Remainder of 2017
	Remainder of 2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter		Total
	in millions

Network and connectivity commitments	$	773.7	$	448.6	$	364.7	$	276.0	$	251.2	$	69.3	$	887.7	$	3,071.2
Programming commitments	622.1		1,093.5		600.8		244.2		74.5		37.6		61.4		2,734.1
Purchase commitments	900.2		292.6		242.3		176.9		83.4		22.6		62.2		1,780.2
Operating leases	75.0		120.6		100.9		80.7		65.8		54.6		214.4		712.0
Other commitments	48.9		24.1		14.1		8.8		8.0		8.0		7.5		119.4
Total (a)	$	2,419.9	$	1,979.4	$	1,322.8	$	786.6	$	482.9	$	192.1	$	1,233.2	$	8,416.9

Network and connectivity commitments include (i) Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs associated with its leased network, (ii) commitments associated with our MVNO agreements and (iii) service commitments associated with our network extension projects, primarily in the U.K. Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs are subject to adjustment based on changes in the network operating costs incurred by Telenet with respect to its own networks. These potential adjustments are not subject to reasonable estimation and, therefore, are not included in the above table. The amounts reflected in the above table with respect to certain of our MVNO commitments represent fixed minimum amounts payable under these agreements and, therefore, may be significantly less than the actual amounts we ultimately pay in these periods.

Programming commitments consist of obligations associated with certain of our programming, studio output and sports rights contracts that are enforceable and legally binding on us as we have agreed to pay minimum fees without regard to (i) the actual number of subscribers to the programming services, (ii) whether we terminate service to a portion of our subscribers or dispose of a portion of our distribution systems or (iii) whether we discontinue our premium sports services. In addition, programming commitments do not include increases in future periods associated with contractual inflation or other price adjustments that are not fixed. Accordingly, the amounts reflected in the above table with respect to these contracts are significantly less than the amounts we expect to pay in these periods under these contracts. Historically, payments to programming vendors have represented a significant portion of our operating costs, and we expect that this will continue to be the case in future periods. In this regard, our total programming and copyright costs aggregated $1,075.4 million (including $870.4 million for the Liberty Global Group

In addition to the commitments set forth in the table above, we have significant commitments under (i) derivative instruments and (ii) defined benefit plans and similar agreements, pursuant to which we expect to make payments in future periods. For information regarding our derivative instruments, including the net cash paid or received in connection with these instruments during the six months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, see note 5.

We also have commitments pursuant to agreements with, and obligations imposed by, franchise authorities and municipalities, which may include obligations in certain markets to move aerial cable to underground ducts or to upgrade, rebuild or extend portions of our broadband communication systems. Such amounts are not included in the above table because they are not fixed or determinable.

In the ordinary course of business, we may provide (i) indemnifications to our lenders, our vendors and certain other parties and (ii) performance and/or financial guarantees to local municipalities, our customers and vendors. Historically, these arrangements have not resulted in our company making any material payments and we do not believe that they will result in material payments in the future. In addition, CWC has provided indemnifications of (a) up to $300.0 million in respect of any potential tax-related claims related to the disposal of CWC’s interests in certain businesses in April 2013 and (b) an unlimited amount of qualifying claims associated with the disposal of another business in May 2014. The first indemnification expires in April 2020 and the second expires in May 2020. We do not expect that either of these arrangements will require us to make material payments to the indemnified parties.

The CWC Acquisition constituted a “change of control” under a contingent funding agreement (the Contingent Funding Agreement) between CWC and the trustee of the Cable & Wireless Superannuation Fund (CWSF). Under the terms of the Contingent Funding Agreement, the change in control provided the trustee of the CWSF with the right to satisfy certain funding requirements of the CWSF through the utilization of letters of credit aggregating £100.0 million that were put in place in connection with a previous acquisition made by CWC. On June 26, 2017, the trustee of the CWSF elected to drawdown the full £100.0 million ($129.6 million at the applicable rate) available under the letters of credit, which amount was contributed to the CWSF on July 3, 2017.

Interkabel Acquisition. On November 26, 2007, Telenet and four associations of municipalities in Belgium, which we refer to as the pure intercommunales or the “PICs,” announced a non-binding agreement-in-principle to transfer the analog and digital television activities of the PICs, including all existing subscribers to Telenet. Subsequently, Telenet and the PICs entered into a binding agreement (the 2008 PICs Agreement), which closed effective October 1, 2008. Beginning in December 2007, Proximus NV/SA (Proximus), the incumbent telecommunications operator in Belgium, instituted several proceedings seeking to block implementation of these agreements. Proximus lodged summary proceedings with the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp to obtain a provisional injunction preventing the PICs from effecting the agreement-in-principle and initiated a civil procedure on the merits claiming the annulment of the agreement-in-principle. In March 2008, the President of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of Proximus in the summary proceedings, which ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in June 2008. Proximus brought this appeal judgment before the Cour de Cassation (the Belgian Supreme Court),

which confirmed the appeal judgment in September 2010. On April 6, 2009, the Court of First Instance of Antwerp ruled in favor of the PICs and Telenet in the civil procedure on the merits, dismissing Proximus’s request for the rescission of the agreement-in-principle and the 2008 PICs Agreement. On June 12, 2009, Proximus appealed this judgment with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In this appeal, Proximus is now also seeking compensation for damages should the 2008 PICs Agreement not be rescinded. While these proceedings were suspended indefinitely, other proceedings were initiated, which resulted in a ruling by the Belgian Council of State in May 2014 annulling (i) the decision of the PICs not to organize a public market consultation and (ii) the decision from the PICs’ board of directors to approve the 2008 PICs Agreement. In December 2015, Proximus resumed the civil proceedings pending with the Court of Appeal of Antwerp seeking to have the 2008 PICs Agreement annulled and claiming damages of €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion).

Telenet intends to defend itself vigorously in the resumed proceedings and does not expect an outcome before the end of 2017. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these or other proceedings. However, an unfavorable outcome of existing or future proceedings could potentially lead to the annulment of the 2008 PICs Agreement and/or to an obligation of Telenet to pay compensation for damages, subject to the relevant provisions of the 2008 PICs Agreement, which stipulate that Telenet is responsible for damages in excess of €20.0 million ($22.8 million). We do not expect the ultimate resolution of this matter to have a material impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. No amounts have been accrued by us with respect to this matter as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable.

Deutsche Telekom Litigation. On December 28, 2012, Unitymedia filed a lawsuit against Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Deutsche Telekom), an operating subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, in which Unitymedia asserts that it pays excessive prices for the co-use of Deutsche Telekom’s cable ducts in Unitymedia’s footprint. The Federal Network Agency approved rates for the co-use of certain ducts of Deutsche Telekom in March 2011. Based in part on these approved rates, Unitymedia is seeking a reduction of the annual lease fees (approximately €76 million ($87 million) for 2012) by approximately two-thirds and the return of similarly calculated overpayments from 2009 through the ultimate settlement date, plus accrued interest. In October 2016, the first instance court dismissed this action. We have appealed this decision, however, the resolution of this matter may take several years and no assurance can be given that Unitymedia’s claims will be successful. Any recovery by Unitymedia will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached.

The Belgium Regulatory Authorities adopted a final decision on July 1, 2011 (the July 2011 Decision) with some minor revisions. The regulatory obligations imposed by the July 2011 Decision include (i) an obligation to make a resale offer at “retail minus’’ of the cable analog package available to third-party operators (including Proximus), (ii) an obligation to grant third-party operators (except Proximus) access to digital television platforms (including the basic digital video package) at “retail minus” and (iii) an obligation to make a resale offer at “retail minus’’ of broadband internet access available to beneficiaries of the digital television access obligation that wish to offer bundles of digital video and broadband internet services to their customers (except Proximus).

In February 2012, Telenet submitted draft reference offers regarding the obligations described above, and the Belgium Regulatory Authorities published the final decision on September 9, 2013. Telenet has implemented the access obligations as described in its reference offers and, on March 1, 2016, Orange Belgium NV (Orange Belgium), formerly known as Mobistar SA, launched a commercial offer combining a cable TV package and broadband internet access for certain of their mobile customers. In addition, as a result of the November 2014 decision by the Brussels Court of Appeal described below, on November 14, 2014, Proximus submitted a request to Telenet to commence access negotiations. Telenet contests this request and has asked the Belgium Regulatory Authorities to assess the reasonableness of the Proximus request. The timing for a decision regarding this assessment by the Belgium Regulatory Authorities is not known.

On December 14, 2015, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities published a draft decision, which amended previously-issued decisions and sets forth the “retail minus” tariffs of minus 26% for basic television (basic analog and digital video package) and minus 18% for the bundle of basic television and broadband internet services during an initial two-year period. Following this two-year period, the tariffs would change to minus 15% and 7%, respectively. The draft decision was notified to the European Commission and a final decision was adopted on February 19, 2016. A “retail minus” method of pricing involves a wholesale

Telenet filed an appeal against the July 2011 Decision with the Brussels Court of Appeal. On November 12, 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal rejected Telenet’s appeal of the July 2011 Decision and accepted Proximus’s claim that Proximus should be allowed access to Telenet’s, among other operators, digital television platform and the resale of bundles of digital video and broadband internet services. On November 30, 2015, Telenet filed an appeal of this decision with the Belgian Supreme Court. In 2014, Telenet and wireless operator Orange Belgium each filed an appeal with the Brussels Court of Appeal against the initial retail minus decisions. These appeals are still pending. On April 25, 2016, Telenet also filed an appeal with the Brussels Court of Appeal challenging the February 19, 2016 retail minus decision. There can be no certainty that Telenet’s appeals will be successful.

On July 7, 2017, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities published draft market review decisions for public consultation regarding the regulation of the wholesale broadband and broadcasting markets (the July 2017 Draft Market Review Decisions). The July 2017 Draft Market Review Decisions include proposals regarding the following regulatory obligations (based on "reasonable tariffs") on cable operators within their respective footprints: (i) an obligation to grant third-party operators access to digital television platforms (including the basic digital video package and analogue TV) and separately (ii) an obligation to make a bitstream offer of broadband internet access available (including fixed voice as an option). The Belgium Regulatory Authorities also propose the continuation of access regulation to Proximus for digital subscriber lines (DSL), adding access to fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and multicast. DSL would continue to be regulated on cost orientation, while FTTH would be regulated at "reasonable tariffs". The public consultation runs until September 15, 2017, followed by a notification to the European Commission for advice by the end of 2017. If the July 2017 Draft Market Review Decisions are adopted, they will replace the July 2011 Decision. However, Telenet has serious concerns with these proposals as they would lead to regulating two broadband infrastructures, which is inconsistent with the European Single Market Strategy to stimulate further investments in broadband networks. Telenet is currently preparing its submission to the public consultation.

The July 2011 Decision and the July 2017 Draft Market Review Decisions aim to, and in their application may, strengthen Telenet’s competitors by granting them resale access to Telenet’s network to offer competing products and services notwithstanding Telenet’s substantial historical financial outlays in developing the infrastructure. In addition, any growth in the resale access granted to competitors could (i) limit the bandwidth available to Telenet to provide new or expanded products and services to the customers served by its network and (ii) adversely impact Telenet’s ability to maintain or increase its revenue and cash flows. The extent of any such adverse impacts ultimately will be dependent on the extent that competitors take advantage of the resale access ultimately afforded to Telenet’s network and other competitive factors or market developments.

Financial Transactions Tax. Certain countries in the European Union (E.U.), including Germany, Austria and Slovakia, are participating in an enhanced cooperation procedure to introduce a financial transactions tax (the FTT). Under the draft language of the FTT proposal, a wide range of financial transactions could be taxed at rates of at least 0.01% for derivative transactions based on the notional amount and 0.1% for other covered financial transactions based on the underlying transaction price. Each of the individual countries would be permitted to determine an exact rate, which could be higher than the proposed rates of 0.01% and 0.1%. Any implementation of the FTT could have a global impact because it would apply to all financial transactions where a financial institution is involved (including unregulated entities that engage in certain types of covered activity) and either of the parties (whether the financial institution or its counterparty) is in one of the participating countries. Although there continues to be ongoing discussions in the relevant countries around the FTT, uncertainty remains as to if and when the FTT will be implemented and the breadth of its application. Based on our understanding of the current status of the potential FTT, we do not expect that any implementation of the FTT would occur before 2018. Any imposition of the FTT could increase banking fees and introduce taxes on internal transactions that we currently perform. Due to the uncertainty regarding the FTT, we are currently unable to estimate the financial impact that the FTT could have on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Virgin Media VAT Matters. Virgin Media’s application of VAT with respect to certain revenue generating activities has been challenged by the U.K. tax authorities. Virgin Media has estimated its maximum exposure in the event of an unfavorable outcome to be £46.7 million ($60.7 million) as of June 30, 2017. No portion of this exposure has been accrued by Virgin Media as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable. A court hearing was held at the end of September 2014 in relation to the U.K. tax authorities’ challenge and the timing of the court’s decision is uncertain.

on May 1, 2014, impacted our company and some of our competitors. The U.K. tax authority issued a decision in the fourth quarter of 2015 challenging our application of the prompt payment discount rules prior to the May 1, 2014 change in legislation. We have appealed this decision. As part of the appeal process, we were required to make aggregate payments of £67.0 million ($99.1 million at the respective transaction dates), which included the challenged amount of £63.7 million and related interest of £3.3 million. The aggregate amount paid does not include penalties, which could be significant in the unlikely event that penalties were to be assessed. This matter will likely be subject to court proceedings that could delay the ultimate resolution for an extended period of time. No portion of this potential exposure has been accrued by our company as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable.

Hungary VAT Matter. In February 2016, our direct-to-home satellite (DTH) operations in Luxembourg received a second instance decision from the Hungarian tax authorities as a result of an audit with respect to VAT payments that the Hungarian tax authorities conducted for the years 2010 through 2012. The Hungarian tax authorities assessed our DTH operations with an obligation to pay VAT for the years audited of HUF 5,413.2 million ($20.0 million), excluding interest and penalties, which could be significant. We believe that our DTH operations have operated in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and interpretations thereof, including a binding tax ruling that we received from the Hungarian government in 2010. In October 2016 a Budapest court disagreed with the tax authorities and dismissed the assessment. On February 2, 2017, the Hungarian tax authorities appealed the Budapest court decision to the Hungarian Supreme Court and a hearing has been scheduled for November 9, 2017. No portion of this exposure has been accrued by us as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable.

Other Regulatory Issues. Video distribution, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony, mobile and content businesses are regulated in each of the countries in which we or our affiliates operate. The scope of regulation varies from country to country, although in some significant respects regulation in European markets is harmonized under the regulatory structure of the E.U. Adverse regulatory developments could subject our businesses to a number of risks. Regulation, including conditions imposed on us by competition or other authorities as a requirement to close acquisitions or dispositions, could limit growth, revenue and the number and types of services offered and could lead to increased operating costs and property and equipment additions. In addition, regulation may restrict our operations and subject them to further competitive pressure, including pricing restrictions, interconnect and other access obligations, and restrictions or controls on content, including content provided by third parties. Failure to comply with current or future regulation could expose our businesses to various penalties.

Effective April 1, 2017, the rateable value of our existing network and other assets in the U.K. increased significantly. This increase affects the amount we pay for network infrastructure charges as the annual amount payable to the U.K. government is calculated by applying a percentage multiplier to the rateable value of assets. This change, together with a similar change in Ireland, will result in significant increases in our network infrastructure charges. We estimate that the aggregate amount of these increases will be approximately £30 million ($39 million) during 2017 and will build to a maximum aggregate increase of up to £100 million ($130 million) in 2021. We continue to believe that these increases are excessive and retain the right of appeal should more favorable agreements be reached with other operators. The rateable value of network and other assets constructed under our network extension program in the U.K. remains subject to review by the U.K. government.