Optimum Communications Inc Class A (15PA) Risk Analysis

In 2019, we launched our mobile service using our own core infrastructure and our iMVNO agreements with Sprint (now T-Mobile) and other roaming partners, including AT&T. Our iMVNO service is subject to many of the same FCC regulations as traditional mobile service as well as some state and local regulations. The FCC or other regulatory authorities may adopt new or different regulations for iMVNOs or mobile carriers, or impose new fees, which could adversely affect our service or the business opportunity generally.

We offer telephone services over our broadband network and continue to develop and deploy interconnected VoIP services. The FCC has ruled that competitive telephone companies that support VoIP services, such as those that we offer to our customers, are entitled to interconnect with incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services, which ensures that our VoIP services can operate in the market. It remains unclear precisely to what extent federal and state regulators will subject VoIP services to traditional telephone service regulation. Expanding our offering of these services may require us to obtain certain authorizations, including federal and state licenses. We may not be able to obtain such authorizations in a timely manner, or conditions could be imposed upon such licenses or authorizations that may not be favorable to us. The FCC has already extended certain traditional telecommunications requirements, such as E911 capabilities, USF contribution, CALEA, measures to protect Customer Proprietary Network Information, customer privacy, disability access, number porting, battery back-up, network outage reporting, rural call completion reporting and other regulatory requirements to many VoIP providers such as us. If additional telecommunications regulations are applied to our VoIP service, it could cause us to incur additional costs and may otherwise materially adversely impact our operations. In 2011, the FCC released an order significantly changing the rules governing intercarrier compensation for the origination and termination of telephone traffic between interconnected carriers. In 2020, the FCC adopted further reforms to intercarrier compensation for the origination of certain calls. The FCC also has a pending proceeding that could further reduce or eliminate compensation for remaining traffic.

On February 26, 2015, the FCC adopted a new "net neutrality" or Open Internet order (the "2015 Order") that: (1) reclassified broadband Internet access service from an information service to a Title II common carrier service, (2) applied certain existing Title II provisions and associated regulations; (3) forbore from applying a range of other existing Title II provisions and associated regulations, but to varying degrees indicated that this forbearance may be only temporary and (4) issued new rules expanding disclosure requirements and prohibiting blocking, throttling, paid prioritization and unreasonable interference with the ability of end users and edge providers to reach each other. The 2015 Order also subjected broadband providers' Internet traffic exchange rates and practices to potential FCC oversight and created a mechanism for third parties to file complaints regarding these matters. The 2015 Order could have had a material adverse impact on our business by limiting our ability to efficiently manage our cable systems and respond to operational and competitive challenges. In December 2017, the FCC adopted an order (the "2017 Order") that in large part reverses the 2015 Order and reestablishes the "information service" classification for broadband services. The 2017 Order was affirmed in part on appeal in October 2019 insofar as it classified broadband Internet access services as information services subject to lesser federal regulation. However, the 2017 Order was also vacated in part on appeal insofar as it preempted states from subjecting broadband Internet access services to any requirements more stringent than the federal requirements. As a result, the precise extent to which state rules may impose such requirements on broadband Internet access service providers, as well as other regulations that differ from federal requirements, is not fully settled. A number of states, including California and New York, have adopted legislation and executive orders that apply "net neutrality" rules to ISPs. The California legislation took effect in March 2021, and was upheld in 2022 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against a challenge by internet service providers. New York has in place an executive order that requires entities contracting with state agencies to commit to and certify compliance with net neutrality principles across the market. In 2024 the FCC reclassified broadband service as a common carrier telecommunications service and reinstituted net neutrality rules substantially similar to those in the 2015 Order. The 2024 Order was stayed and, in 2025, vacated by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit denied a request for en banc rehearing, and that decision was not appealed. New York and New Jersey each have in place an executive order that requires entities contracting with state agencies to commit to and certify compliance with net neutrality principles across the market. These state net neutrality requirements currently remain in place notwithstanding the court decision overturning the FCC's net neutrality rules. In the wake of the Sixth Circuit decision, Congress may consider legislation codifying some form of "net neutrality" rules. The FCC or Congress could also address the extent to which states may also impose such rules or otherwise regulate broadband service. While neither the FCC nor states currently regulate the price for broadband services generally, the state of New York enacted legislation that would regulate the price and terms for the broadband service offered to low-income households. This law was enjoined by a New York federal court, but the injunction was vacated on appeal and the Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal. In 2025, the State of Connecticut also enacted legislation, which goes into effect in 2026, requiring certain broadband internet service providers to offer broadband service to low-income households at reduced rates. In 2025, Congress enacted legislation extending the FCC's authority to hold spectrum auctions until 2034, and directing the FCC to auction at least 500 megahertz of spectrum by 2033. The additional spectrum made available by this auction could also be won by mobile carriers and others who use it to provide fixed wireless broadband service in competition with our wired broadband.

Cable operators also face significant regulation affecting the carriage of broadcast and other programming channels. We can be required to devote substantial capacity to the carriage of programming that we might not otherwise carry voluntarily, including certain local broadcast signals; local public, educational and governmental access programming; and unaffiliated, commercial leased access programming (channel capacity designated for use by programmers unaffiliated with the cable operator). Regulatory changes in this area could disrupt existing programming commitments and contracts, interfere with our preferred use of limited channel capacity and limit our ability to offer services that would maximize our revenue potential. It is possible that other legal restraints will be adopted limiting our discretion over programming decisions. Broadcast consolidation could give broadcasters greater leverage in carriage negotiations with us, potentially increasing the carriage fees we pay them. The FCC is considering several changes to broadcast ownership rules that could increase consolidation. Recent FCC broadcast ownership initiatives are described in "Business-Regulation-Cable Television- Ownership Limitations."

Pole attachments are cable wires that are attached to utility poles. Cable system pole attachments to utility poles operated by investor-owned utilities historically have been regulated at the federal or state level, generally resulting in favorable pole attachment rates and rights for attachments used to provide cable service. Adverse changes in the current pole attachment approach could result in a substantial increase in our pole attachment costs. Moreover, expansion of our business into new areas, including areas where poles are operated by electric cooperatives or municipalities not subject to FCC or state regulation, may be frustrated by delays, capacity constraints, "makeready" demands or the general inability to secure appropriate pole or conduit rights, as well as higher pole and conduit access costs.

The cable industry has operated under a federal rate regulation regime for more than three decades. Currently, rate regulation by franchising authorities is strictly limited to the basic service tier and associated equipment and installation activities. A franchising authority that wishes to regulate basic cable service offered by a particular cable system must certify and demonstrate that the cable system is not subject to "effective competition" as defined by federal law. Our franchise authorities have not certified to exercise this limited rate regulation authority. If any of our local franchising authorities obtain certification to regulate rates, they would have the power to reduce rates and order refunds on the rates charged for basic service and equipment, which could reduce our revenues. The FCC and Congress also continue to be concerned that cable rate increases are exceeding inflation. It is possible that either the FCC or Congress will adopt more extensive rate regulation for our video services or regulate our other services, such as broadband and telephony services, which could impede our ability to raise rates, or require rate reductions. Recent FCC price regulation initiatives are described in Regulation-Cable Television-Pricing and Packaging. To the extent we are unable to raise our rates in response to increasing costs, or are required to reduce our rates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity will be materially adversely affected. There has been legislative and regulatory interest in requiring cable operators to offer historically bundled programming services on an à la carte basis. It is possible that new marketing restrictions could be adopted in the future. These restrictions could affect how we provide, and limit, customer equipment used in connection with our services and how we provide access to video programming beyond conventional cable delivery. A number of state and local regulatory authorities have imposed or seek to impose price- or price-related regulation that we believe is inconsistent with FCC direction, and these efforts, if successful, will diminish the benefits of deregulation and hamper our ability to compete with our largely unregulated competitors. We brought a challenge in federal and state court against one such attempt to regulate our pricing by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, but that regulation was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In addition, in the past, there has been interest at the FCC and in Congress in proposals that would allow customers to receive cable service without having to rent a set-top box from their cable operator. These proposals could, if adopted, adversely affect our relationship with our customers and programmers and our operations. It is also possible that regulations will be adopted affecting the negotiations between MVPDs (like us) and programmers. While these regulations might provide us with additional rights and protections in our programming negotiations, they might also limit our flexibility in ways that adversely affect our operations.

In addition to the franchise agreement, local franchising authorities in some jurisdictions have adopted cable regulatory ordinances that further regulate the operation of cable systems. This additional regulation increases the cost of operating our business. For example, some local franchising authorities impose minimum customer service standards on our operations. There are no assurances that the local franchising authorities will not impose new and more restrictive requirements.