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 and other items. The following table sets forth the U.S. dollar equivalents of such commitments as of September 30, 2020. Due to the held-for-sale presentation of the U.K. JV Entities at September 30, 2020, the contractual commitments of these entities have been shown separately in the table below. For information regarding the held-for-sale presentation of the U.K. JV Entities, see note 4. The commitments included in this table do not reflect any liabilities that are included on our September 30, 2020 condensed consolidated balance sheet.



	Payments due during:
	Remainder of 2020
	Remainder of 2020		2021		2022		2023		2024		2025		Thereafter		Total
	in millions

Network and connectivity commitments	$	45.5	$	99.8	$	70.3	$	44.9	$	38.5	$	37.0	$	714.7	$	1,050.7
Programming commitments	108.9		233.9		139.7		47.5		14.9		14.5		16.8		576.2
Purchase commitments	147.8		227.8		49.6		33.6		18.2		15.0		11.2		503.2
Other commitments	2.0		3.0		3.0		1.8		1.4		0.4		1.1		12.7
Total	$	304.2	$	564.5	$	262.6	$	127.8	$	73.0	$	66.9	$	743.8	$	2,142.8

U.K. JV Entities	$	607.0	$	1,210.2	$	360.2	$	14.6	$	4.4	$	3.7	$	16.4	$	2,216.5

Network and connectivity commitments include Telenet’s commitments for certain operating costs associated with its leased network. 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 mobile virtual network operator (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. 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

Channel Distribution Agreements. Our channel distribution agreements are generally multi-year contracts for which we are charged either (i) variable rates based upon the number of subscribers or (ii) on a flat fee basis. Certain of our variable rate contracts require minimum guarantees. Programming costs under such arrangements are recorded in operating costs and expenses in our condensed consolidated statement of operations when the programming is available for viewing.

Exhibition Rights. Our agreements for exhibition rights are generally multi-year license agreements for which we are typically charged either (i) a percentage of the revenue earned per program or (ii) a flat fee per program. The current and long-term portions of our exhibition rights acquired under licenses are recorded as other current assets and other assets, net, respectively, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet when the license period begins and the program is available for its first showing. Capitalized exhibition rights are amortized based on the projected future showings of the content using a straight-line or accelerated method of amortization, as appropriate. Exhibition rights are regularly reviewed for impairment and held at the lower of unamortized cost or estimated net realizable value.

Sports Rights. Our sports rights agreements are generally multi-year contracts for which we are typically charged a flat fee per season. We typically pay for sports rights in advance of the respective season. The current and long-term portions of any payments made in advance of the respective season are recorded as other current assets and other assets, net, respectively, on our condensed consolidated balance sheet and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the respective sporting season. Sports rights are regularly reviewed for impairment and held at the lower of unamortized cost or estimated net realizable value.

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 nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, see note 6.

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.

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. 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).

In December 2017, the Court of Appeals of Antwerp issued a judgment rejecting Proximus’ claims. In June 2019, Proximus filed an appeal of the Court of Appeals of Antwerp’s judgment with the Belgian Supreme Court. 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 ($23.4 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.

Telekom Deutschland Litigation. On December 28, 2012, Unitymedia filed a lawsuit against Telekom Deutschland GmbH (Telekom Deutschland) in which Unitymedia asserts that it pays excessive prices for the co-use of Telekom Deutschland’s cable ducts in Unitymedia’s footprint. The Federal Network Agency approved rates for the co-use of certain ducts of Telekom Deutschland in March 2011. Based in part on these approved rates, Unitymedia sought a reduction of the annual lease fees by approximately five-sixths. In addition, Unitymedia is seeking 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, and in March 2018, the court of appeal dismissed Unitymedia’s appeal of the first instance court’s decision and did not grant permission to appeal further to the Federal Court of Justice. Unitymedia has filed a motion with the Federal Court of Justice to grant permission to appeal. The resolution of this matter may take several years and no assurance can be given that Unitymedia’s claims will be successful. In connection with our sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group, we will only share in 50% of any amounts recovered, plus 50% of the net present value of certain cost savings in future periods that are attributable to the favorable resolution of this matter, less 50% of associated legal or other third-party fees paid post-completion of the sale of the Vodafone Disposal Group. Any amount we may recover related to this matter will not be reflected in our consolidated financial statements until such time as the final disposition of this matter has been reached.

Belgium Regulatory Developments. In June 2018, the Belgisch Instituut voor Post en Telecommunicatie and the regional regulators for the media sectors (together, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities) adopted a new decision finding that Telenet has significant market power in the wholesale broadband market (the 2018 Decision). The 2018 Decision imposes on Telenet the obligations to (i) provide third-party operators with access to the digital television platform (including basic digital video and analog video) and (ii) make available to third-party operators a bitstream offer of broadband internet access (including fixed-line telephony as an option). Unlike prior decisions, the 2018 Decision no longer applies “retail minus” pricing on Telenet; however, as of August 1, 2018, this decision imposed a 17% interim price reduction in monthly wholesale cable access prices. On May 26, 2020, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities adopted a final decision regarding the “reasonable access tariffs” to replace the interim prices, which represents an estimated decrease of 11.5%, as compared to the initial August 1, 2018 interim rates, and is applicable as of July 1, 2020. These rates are expected to evolve over time due to, among other reasons, broadband capacity usage.

The 2018 Decision aims to, and in its 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 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 afforded to Telenet’s network, the rates that Telenet receives for such access and other competitive factors or market developments. Telenet considers the 2018 Decision to be inconsistent with the

principle of technology-neutral regulation and the European Single Market Strategy to stimulate further investments in broadband networks. Telenet challenged the 2018 Decision in the Brussels Court of Appeal. In September 2019, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the 2018 Decision, and consequently, the above-mentioned obligations stemming from the 2018 Decision remain in place. Telenet is currently considering whether to appeal the decision further.

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 (HMRC). HMRC claimed that amounts charged to certain Virgin Media customers for payment handling services are subject to VAT, while Virgin Media took the position that such charges were exempt from VAT under existing law. At the time of HMRC’s initial challenge in 2009, Virgin Media remitted all related VAT amounts claimed by HMRC, and continued to make such VAT payments pending a ruling on Virgin Media’s appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. As the likelihood of loss was not considered probable and Virgin Media believed that the amounts paid would be recoverable, such amounts were recorded as a receivable on our consolidated balance sheet. In January 2020, the First Tier Tribunal rejected our appeal and ruled in favor of HMRC. Accordingly, during the fourth quarter of 2019, we recorded a net provision for litigation of £41.3 million ($54.0 million at the applicable rate). Virgin Media has been granted permission to appeal the case to the Upper Tribunal, with the appeal being stayed pending the outcome of a related case. The timing of the final outcome of the litigation remains uncertain, although any further hearing on this matter is unlikely to occur before the third quarter of 2021.

In a separate matter, on March 19, 2014, the U.K. government announced a change in legislation with respect to the charging of VAT in connection with prompt payment discounts such as those that we offer to our fixed-line telephony customers. This change, which took effect on May 1, 2014, impacted our company and some of our competitors. HMRC 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 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), comprising (i) the challenged amount of £63.7 million (which we paid during the fourth quarter of 2015) and (ii) related interest of £3.3 million (which we paid during the first quarter of 2016). No provision was recorded by our company at that time as the likelihood of loss was not considered to be probable. The aggregate amount paid does not include penalties, which could be significant in the event that penalties were to be assessed. In September 2018, the court rejected our appeal and ruled in favor of HMRC. Accordingly, during the third quarter of 2018, we recorded a provision for litigation of £63.7 million ($83.1 million at the average rate for the period) and related interest expense of £3.3 million ($4.4 million at the average rate for the period) in our condensed consolidated statement of operations. The First Tier Tribunal gave permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and we submitted grounds for appeal on February 22, 2019. We subsequently lost the appeal at the Upper Tribunal and in October 2020 our request to further appeal the case was denied by the Court of Appeal; accordingly, we now consider this matter to be closed.

UPC Austria Matter. On July 31 2018, we completed the sale of our Austrian operations, “UPC Austria,” to Deutsche Telekom AG (Deutsche Telekom). In October of 2019, we received notification under the terms of the relevant acquisition agreements from Deutsche Telekom and its subsidiary T-Mobile Austria Holding GmbH (together, the UPC Austria Sale Counterparties), asserting claims of approximately €70.5 million ($82.6 million) together with an invitation to engage in amicable discussions to resolve the matter in a time and cost effective manner. We since received further asserted claims of approximately €20.6 million ($24.1 million). Discussions regarding the claims are preliminary and no amounts have been accrued by our company with respect to this matter as the likelihood of loss is not considered to be probable at this stage. We are unable to provide any meaningful estimate of a possible range of loss because, among other reasons, (i) we believe the assertions are unsupported and/or exaggerated, (ii) there are significant factual matters to be resolved and (iii) the matter is in a preliminary stage and we have yet to engage in detail with the UPC Austria Sale Counterparties. The acquisition agreement provides for arbitration of disputes in the event the parties are unable to resolve any differences. We intend to vigorously defend this matter.

Other Contingency Matters. In connection with the dispositions of certain of our operations, we provided tax indemnities to the counterparties for certain tax liabilities that could arise from the period we owned the respective operations, subject to certain thresholds. While we have not received notification from the counterparties for indemnification, it is reasonably possible that we could, and the amounts involved could be significant. No amounts have been accrued by our company as the likelihood of any loss is not considered to be probable.

Other Regulatory Matters. 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 European Union (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 has and will continue to significantly increase our network infrastructure charges. As compared to 2019, we expect the aggregate amount of this increase will be approximately £16 million ($21 million) in 2020. Beyond 2020, we expect further but declining increases to these charges through the first quarter of 2022. 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 our network and other assets in the U.K. remains subject to review by the U.K. government.

The U.K. Office of Communications (Ofcom) is the key regulatory authority for the communications sector in which we operate in the U.K. Ofcom has recently issued new regulatory requirements that, effective in February 2020, obligate us to (i) alert customers who are approaching the end of a minimum contract term to the fact that their contract period is coming to an end and to set out the best new price that we can offer them and (ii) once a year, alert customers who are out of contract to that fact and again confirm the best new price we can offer them. In both cases, we must also set out the price available to new customers for an equivalent service offering. While we do not anticipate these requirements will have a material impact on our 2020 operating results, they could have a material adverse impact in future periods.

In late February 2020, we became aware that one of our databases did not have adequate access security protection and was accessed without permission. We immediately took remedial actions, ceased access to the database and commenced an investigation. The information in the database did not include any individual’s passwords or financial details, such as credit card information, or bank account numbers. We have taken steps to inform those individuals impacted and relevant regulatory authorities. The database had information pertaining to approximately 900,000 individuals (including customers and non-customers), representing a number that would be less than 15% of our total customer base. We do not expect this incident to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition for any fiscal period and given the preliminary nature of the matter we are unable to provide a meaningful estimate of a possible range of loss, if any.