ITEM 1.         BUSINESS

Overview

Cable One, Inc. ( “Cable One,” “us,” “our,” “we” or the “Company”) is a fully integrated provider of data, video and voice services in 21 Western, Midwestern and Southern states. We provide these broadband services to residential and business customers in more than 750 communities. The markets we serve are primarily non-metropolitan, secondary markets, with 77% of our customers located in seven states: Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. Our biggest customer concentrations are in the Mississippi Gulf Coast region and in the greater Boise, Idaho region. We are among the 10 largest cable system operators in the United States based on customers and revenues in 2017, providing service to 797,537 residential and business customers out of approximately 2.1 million homes passed as of December 31, 2017. Of these customers, 643,153 subscribed to data services, 363,888 subscribed to video services and 134,881 subscribed to voice services.

We generate substantially all of our revenues through five primary products. Ranked by share of our total revenues during 2017, they are residential data (43.2%), residential video (34.6%), business services (data, voice and video – 13.7%), residential voice (4.6%) and advertising sales (2.6%). The profit margins, growth rates and capital intensity of our five primary products vary significantly due to competition, product maturity and relative costs. In 2017, our Adjusted EBITDA margins for residential data and business services were approximately four and five times greater, respectively, than for residential video. We define Adjusted EBITDA margin for a product line as Adjusted EBITDA attributable to that product line divided by revenue attributable to that product line (see the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Use of Adjusted EBITDA” for the definition of Adjusted EBITDA and a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to net income, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure). This margin disparity is largely the result of significant programming costs and retransmission fees incurred to deliver residential video services, which in each of the last three years represented between 50% and 60% of total residential video revenues (in addition to the other material direct and indirect costs associated with residential video). None of our other product lines has direct costs representing as substantial a portion of revenues as programming costs and retransmission fees represent for residential video, and indirect costs are allocated equally on a per primary service unit (“PSU”) basis. Programming costs and retransmission fees have a meaningfully lower impact on business services margins than residential video because business services include data, voice and video, diminishing the relative impact of programming costs and retransmission fees on that product line as a whole.

Prior to 2012, we were focused on growing revenues through subscriber retention and growth in overall PSUs. Accordingly, our strategies consisted of, among others, offering promotional discounts to new and existing subscribers adding new services and to subscribers purchasing more than one service offering. Since 2012, we have adapted our strategy to face the industry-wide trends of declining profitability of residential video services and declining revenues from residential voice services. We believe the declining profitability of residential video services is primarily due to increasing programming costs and retransmission fees and competition from other content providers and the declining revenues from residential voice services is primarily due to the increasing use of wireless voice services in addition to, or instead of, residential voice service. Beginning in 2013, we shifted our focus away from maximizing customer PSUs and towards growing and maintaining our higher margin businesses, namely residential data and business services. Separately, we have also focused on retaining customers with a high expected life-time value (“LTV”), who are less attracted by discounting, require less support and churn less. This strategy focuses on increasing Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA less capital expenditures and margins.

The trends described above have impacted our four largest produ ct lines in the following ways:

We continue to experience increased competition, particularly from telephone companies, cable and municipal overbuilders, over-the-top (“OTT”) video providers and direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) television providers. Because of the levels of competition we face, we believe it is important to make investments in our infrastructure. We made elevated levels of capital investments between 2012 and 2017 to increase our cable plant capacities and reliability, launch all-digital video services, which has freed up approximately half of average plant bandwidth for data services, and increase data capacity by moving from four-channel bonding to 32-channel bonding. We expect to continue devoting financial resources to infrastructure improvements, including in the new markets we acquired in the NewWave transaction described below, because we believe these investments are necessary to remain competitive. We expect to spend up to $60 million over three years, including $10 million spent in 2017, to enhance the acquired NewWave systems by rebuilding low capacity markets, launching all-digital video services, implementing 32-channel bonding to enable a 1 Gigabit per second (“Gbps”) download speed product launch, converting back office functions such as billing, accounting and service provisioning and migrating products to legacy Cable One platforms. The term “legacy Cable One” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refers to Cable One operations excluding the impact or operations of NewWave.

Our goals are to continue to grow residential data and business services and to maintain profit margins to deliver strong Adjusted EBITDA. To achieve these goals, we intend to continue our industrial engineering-driven cost management, remain focused on customers with high LTV and follow through with further planned investments in broadband plant upgrades and new data services offerings for residential and business customers.

Our business is subject to extensive governmental regulation. Such regulation has led to increases in our operational and administrative expenses. In addition, we could be significantly impacted by changes to the existing regulatory framework, whether triggered by legislative, administrative or judicial rulings. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) used its Title II authority to regulate broadband internet access services through the Open Internet Order (the “Order”), which imposed on all providers of broadband internet access service, including us, obligations that limit the ways certain types of traffic can be managed and prescribes certain additional disclosure requirements. The Order was upheld in the courts, but in September 2017, several parties, including the American Cable Association and NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (the “NCTA”), filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Responses to the petitions are due March 5, 2018. However, in December 2017, the FCC rescinded the majority of the Open Internet rules previously adopted in the Order, with the exception of the disclosure requirements. Several parties have challenged the FCC’s new rules in various Federal courts. Congress and several states also have proposed legislation regarding the net neutrality rules. We cannot predict whether or when future changes to the regulatory framework will occur at the FCC, in Congress, at the state level or in the courts. We also cannot predict whether or to what extent the rules as revised by the FCC, Congress, the states or the courts may affect our operations or impose costs on our business.

We serve our customers through a plant and network with 100% two-way capacity measuring approximately 750 MHz on average and DOCSIS 3.0 capabilities in all of our systems. Our technically advanced infrastructure provides for delivery of a full suite of data, video and voice products. Our broadband plant offers fiber-to-the-node with ample unused capacity and standard download speeds of 100 Megabits per second (“Mbps”), which meaningfully distinguishes our offering from competitors in most of our markets. We have completed a multi-year investment program in our plant, which resulted in increased broadband capacity and reliability and which has enabled and will continue to enable us to offer even higher download speeds to our customers (at both the standard and enhanced data service levels), which we believe will reinforce our competitive strength in this area.

Corporate History

In 1986, The Washington Post Company (the prior name of our former corporate parent, Graham Holdings Company (“GHC”)) acquired from Capital Cities Communications, Inc. (“Capital Cities”) a number of other companies owning, in total, 53 cable television systems. The cable systems acquired in that transaction had approximately 350,000 subscribers in 15 Western, Midwestern and Southern states. All other mid-sized cable operators that existed when we were established have since exited the cable business.

Subsequent to the Capital Cities transaction, we completed over 30 acquisitions and dispositions of cable systems, both through cash sales and trades of certain of our cable systems for cable systems of other cable operators. We have been disciplined about the price we pay in acquisitions, acquiring new customers opportunistically at what we considered favorable prices. In the process, we have substantially reshaped our original geographic footprint and resized our typical system, including exiting a number of metropolitan markets. For example, we traded to other cable operators our cable systems in the Chicago, San Francisco, Cleveland and Indianapolis markets (which we acquired as part of the Capital Cities transaction) for cable systems in non-metropolitan markets that fit our business model.

On July 1, 2015, we became an independent company traded under the ticker symbol “CABO” on the New York Stock Exchange after completion of our spin-off from GHC. The spin-off was effected through the distribution by GHC of 100% of the outstanding shares of common stock of Cable One to GHC stockholders as of the record date for the distribution (the “spin-off”) in a pro rata dividend. In connection with the spin-off, approximately 5.84 million shares of Cable One’s common stock were issued and outstanding on July 1, 2015, based on approximately 0.96 million shares of GHC Class A Common Stock and 4.88 million shares of GHC Class B Common Stock outstanding as of June 30, 2015. No preferred stock was issued or outstanding.

I n January 2017, we entered into an agreement to acquire NewWave, a cable operator providing data, video and voice services to residential and business customers throughout non-urban areas of Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. With the acquisition of NewWave, we increased our customer count to a total of approximately 800,000 subscribers in 21 states.

While we are smaller than the nation ’s biggest cable companies, we have a record of consistent, long-term financial and operational success driven by our differentiated operating philosophy. We emphasize focus as opposed to scale, which is a departure from more conventional strategies in the cable industry, but is well suited to the markets in which we operate and enables us to take advantage of our strengths as a cable operator.

Industry Overview

Cable companies in the United States are typically fully integrated providers of data, video and voice services to residential and business customers in various geographic regions. A headend typically serves each of a cable company’s cable systems, receiving data, video and voice service signals by connecting directly to the network backbone, which aggregates signals delivered through over-the-air broadcasting, fiber optic networks and satellite transmissions. From the headend, cable companies modulate, amplify and distribute these signals over a proprietary network of coaxial and fiber optic cable to the homes and businesses of subscribers. In addition to building their own network backbone or leasing physical access to the network backbone from telecommunications companies, cable companies also purchase licenses to provide their subscribers with access to cable television channels owned by programmers and distributed over the network backbone. Cable companies also typically sell advertising on their video channels. The cable industry has benefited from a progression of profitable new product introductions over the past 15 years, including, but not limited to, high-speed data service, high-definition and digital video service and Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) voice service.

Cable companies generate revenue by charging subscription fees to their residential and business customers, typically billed in advance on a monthly basis, at rates that vary according to the data, video and/or voice services for which customers subscribe, and the type of internet access and video equipment furnished to them, as well as through advertising sales. The margins that a cable company can earn on its PSU offerings vary from product to product. Because of rising programming costs and retransmission fees, the profit margin on video services is generally lower than it once was and significantly lower than the current margins on data services. Despite lower margins on video services, the strategy of many cable companies is to market and sell multiple PSUs in bundles or packages in order to maximize the number of PSUs per household. Many in the industry believe it is desirable to sell multiple products as a package because they consider video service a gateway offering to sell data service and because fixed costs per customer can be spread over multiple PSUs. However, recent industry trends have been towards increases in data subscribers even as video and voice subscriptions have declined.

Cable companies generally operate by establishing cable systems in geographic markets under non-exclusive franchises granted by state or local authorities for specified periods of time. The most sought-after markets by major cable companies have generally been the largest metropolitan markets. These markets are thought to offer the advantages of population density (which may permit efficient construction and operation of a  cable distribution system) and attractive demographics, including customers with higher income-per-household than their counterparts in non-metropolitan, secondary markets, leading to lower price sensitivity and a willingness to purchase a greater number of PSUs.

Our Strengths

W e leverage a variety of strengths as a cable operator, stemming from, among other things, historical and ongoing capital investments in our plant and our focus on serving customers in non-metropolitan markets. These strengths include the following:

Attractive markets . Our customers are located primarily in non-metropolitan, secondary markets with favorable competitive dynamics in comparison to major urban centers. In particular:

Deep customer understanding. We have operated as a non-metropolitan cable business for over 20 years. In order to understand our customers’ demands and preferences, we have conducted daily customer research for nearly two decades and currently conduct thousands of customer satisfaction surveys per year. We believe we have gained valuable insight into how to serve customers in non-metropolitan markets, including with respect to providing an optimal mix of video channel options, price points and best-in-class customer service levels. In addition, the vast majority of our employees reside and work in our markets, providing local service that enhances the communities we serve.

Superior broadband technology with ample unused capacity . We offer our residential and business data customers internet products at faster speeds than those available from competitors in most of our markets. Our broadband plant consists of a hybrid fiber-coaxial (“HFC”) network offering fiber-to-the-node with ample unused capacity. Our standard broadband offering for our residential customers is a download speed of 100 Mbps, which is at the high end of the range of standard residential offerings in our markets. Our enhanced broadband offering for our residential customers is currently a download speed of up to 1 Gbps.

In addition, we have made significant investments in our business consistent with our strategic focus to enhance sales of residential data services and business services. We completed significant, multi-year plant and product enhancements in 2017, which increased our broadband capacity and reliability. These initiatives caused us to incur several years of higher than usual capital spending. However, we believe the competitive benefits will be significant, particularly for data services. Among the enhancements in 2017:

We anticipate the foregoing capital projects will facilitate sustained increases in residential data and business services revenues and customer satisfaction .

Low cost structure and competitive pricing . We believe our operating costs, taken as a whole, are as low as or lower than any major cable operator. We attribute our low cost structure to a commitment to focusing on retaining our highest value customers, rather than seeking to obtain as many customers as possible, and the lower costs of operations available in a non-metropolitan market compared to a metropolitan market. In addition, because we operate our residential and business data services with a competitive plant and cost structure, we are able to offer our customers both attractive pricing and compelling products.

Customer satisfaction . We have a customer-focused approach, influencing how we are organized, how we sell our services and how we service our customers. For example, we offer a same-day-service guarantee in almost every one of our markets, which we believe none of our major competitors in our markets currently offer. We believe that our dedication to providing a differentiated customer experience is an important driver of our overall value proposition and creates loyalty, improves customer retention and drives increased demand for our services. We have always focused on customer satisfaction, with an emphasis on consistently benchmarking our customer satisfaction over time and relative to our competitors based on internally and externally generated customer satisfaction data.

Employee satisfaction. We have also focused on employee satisfaction, believing our customers’ satisfaction is tightly linked to our employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction has been routinely measured over time internally and has been consistently high throughout the past decade, based on internal measurements. We currently measure our employee satisfaction annually. None of our employees have been unionized for over two decades.

Experienced management team . Our senior management team is comprised of senior executives who have significant experience in the cable industry. Our executive management team has an average tenure at Cable One (or its predecessors) of over 15 years, and we believe this team is deeply knowledgeable about cost and competitive conditions in our markets. They also understand and are deeply committed to our strategy, which we developed on a collaborative basis over many years.

Our Strategies

We have a multi-faceted strategy that builds upon our long track record of focusing on the right markets, the right products and the right customers, as well as controlling our operating and capital costs. More specifically, our strategy includes the following principal components:

Focus on larger non-metropolitan markets. We believe our decision over 20 years ago to concentrate on non-metropolitan markets has served us well, and we intend to continue to focus on offering our products primarily in these markets. The cable economics of non-metropolitan markets, for which we have optimized our strategy and our operations, are different from cable operations in major cities, and have yielded positive operating results for our business. Because price points for services in non-metropolitan markets are generally lower, and customers in non-metropolitan markets tend to subscribe to fewer PSUs, our average revenue per customer and our PSUs per customer are lower than they might be in metropolitan markets. However, many of our costs are lower than they would be in metropolitan markets. The dynamics of larger, non-metropolitan markets enable us to operate at attractive margins and earn substantial returns, while remaining consistent with our focus on meeting customer demand for low prices and simultaneously keeping costs down. In addition, we tend to face less vigorous competition from telephone companies than cable operators in metropolitan markets.

Maximize Adjusted EBITDA less capital expenditures and drive profitable growth. We concentrate on the products and customers that maximize Adjusted EBITDA less capital expenditures and provide the best opportunity for profitable growth. We believe residential video and residential voice face inexorable long-term declines. With respect to the video product, programmers and broadcasters are charging higher rates and retransmission fees for content to cable companies providing video services (often for content for which viewership is declining), and cable companies have had to choose between absorbing those increases to the detriment of their margins or passing on the full cost to customers, which adversely affects customer demand. At the same time, the rapid expansion of OTT offerings via the internet has given customers new alternatives to cable companies’ video offerings. In addition, demand for cellular and smartphone offerings have reduced residential voice starts for us and others in our industry. As a result, we have reduced our focus on these two products and prioritized higher growth opportunities such as residential data and business services.

We have declined to cross-subsidize our video business with cash flow from our higher growth, higher margin products, which has resulted in our residential video customers declining at a faster rate than the industry average. In legacy Cable One systems, our residential video customers decreased by 11.9% in 2017 versus 2016 and by 12.4% in 2016 versus 2015. Legacy Cable One residential video revenues decreased by $16.5 million, or 5.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2017 versus 2016 and by $37.9 million, or 11.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2016 versus 2015. While this strategy runs contrary to conventional wisdom in the cable industry, which puts heavy emphasis on video customer counts and maximizing the number of PSUs per customer by bundling and discounting services, we believe it best positions us for long-term success. For us, success in growing and retaining residential data and business customers is far more important than the number of triple-play customers we have.

Target higher value residential customers. Since 2013, we have introduced rigorous analytics to determine the LTV of current and potential residential customers. We target marketing and customer service at customers who we believe are likely to produce relatively higher value over the life of their service relationships with us, rather than seeking to maximize the number of new customers. We analyze the net present value of every residential start and seek to identify customers with high LTV, who are more likely to buy data service, less likely to churn and more likely to pay on time. Seeking to retain and sell more services to residential customers with a high LTV has enabled us to earn higher profits with fewer customers and PSU subscriptions. We believe that optimizing the LTV of data-only customers as video and voice cord-cutting accelerates is both a necessity and an opportunity for our business.

Drive growth in residential data and business services. We believe our residential data and business services products provide attractive current and future growth opportunities. Our disciplined prioritization of residential data and business services is reflected in everything we do, including pricing, the allocation of sales, marketing and customer service resources, capital spending and the way we conduct negotiations with suppliers, especially video suppliers. During 2017, we continued to further diversify our revenue streams away from video as residential data and business services represented 56.9% of our total revenues versus 54.2% for 2016 and 47.5% for 2015. Legacy Cable One residential data revenues grew to $371.4 million in 2017, a 7.9% increase versus 2016. We believe we have demonstrated that it is possible to decouple unit growth in our residential data and residential video businesses, which historically have been marketed as a package. Our data-only connects are growing significantly faster than any other segment of our residential business as we have focused on selling data-only packages to new customers rather than cross-selling video services to these customers.

Legacy Cable One business services revenues grew to $112.2 million, or 11.8%, in 2017 compared to 2016. We expect to generate continued growth in business services by leveraging our existing infrastructure capabilities and footprint to offer higher broadband speeds than other providers in our markets and to expand our business services to attract more small, medium-sized and enterprise business customers.

Continue our culture of cost leadership. We believe our total combined operating and capital costs per PSU over the past decade have been among the lowest of any cable company with publicly reported numbers and that our operating margins compare very favorably with those of significantly bigger companies in the cable industry. This is the antithesis of normal cable economies-of-scale expectations, where higher volumes are expected to create lower costs per PSU and increase operating margins. Rather than increasing our size and seeking cost savings through economies-of-scale, we have achieved our lower cost structure over many years by focusing on:

We believe our strategy of focus has produced positive results , and we intend to apply this strategy in our NewWave operations. From 2011 through December 31, 2017, legacy Cable One experienced a 60% reduction in bad debt; a 47% reduction in the frequency of telephone customer service calls, resulting in a 41% headcount reduction in telephone customer service personnel; a decline of 36% in the frequency of technicians being dispatched to customer locations, resulting in a 18% headcount reduction in the staff devoted to that function; and an overall headcount reduction of 528, representing a reduction, primarily through attrition, of nearly 23% of our legacy Cable One workforce (1,802 legacy Cable One employees as of the end of 2017). During this same period, both our customer and employee satisfaction have remained high or improved based on internal measurements and, in the case of customer satisfaction, externally generated data.

Balanced capital allocation . We are committed to a disciplined approach to evaluating acquisitions and internal investments, capital structure optimization and return of capital.

Our Products

Residential Data Services

R esidential data services represented 43.2%, 42.0% and 36.5% of our total revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We offer multiple tiers of data services with download speeds up to 1 Gbps to approximately 95% of our residential legacy Cable One customers as of December 31, 2017 and up to 200 Mbps to our remaining residential customers. Our data services also include our internet portal, http://home.cableone.net , which provides multiple e-mail addresses. To meet the increasing bandwidth needs of our customers who use multiple wired and wireless internet-connected devices in the home, we launched WiFi ONE ^TM in 2017 to residential customers across the entire legacy Cable One footprint. WiFi ONE ^TM is an advanced Wi-Fi solution combining state-of-the-art technology solutions with certified Cable One technicians, who locate and configure hardware based on individual customer need. WiFi ONE ^TM provides customers with enhanced Wi-Fi signal strength, which extends and improves the Wi-Fi signal throughout the home.

Residential Video Services

R esidential video services represented 34.6%, 36.0% and 41.2% of our total revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We offer a broad variety of residential video services, generally ranging from a basic video service to a full digital service with access to hundreds of channels. Our basic video service generally consists of local networks, local community programming, such as governmental and public access, and certain other channels, such as weather, shopping and religious channels. Our digital video service includes national and regional cable networks, music channels and an interactive, electronic programming guide with parental controls. We also offer premium channels, which include networks such as HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax, that generally offer, without commercial interruption, movies, original programming, live sporting events and concerts and other features. Our digital video customers may also subscribe to our advanced services. Our advanced video services include whole-home DVRs, which digitally record programming and pause and rewind live programming, and high-definition set-top boxes, which provide high-resolution picture quality, improved audio quality and a wide-screen format and allow our customers to access internet content on their televisions.

Our TV Everywhere product enables our video customers to stream many of their favorite channels and shows to mobile devices and computers, expanding the value of our video service. Our TV Everywhere product includes the most popular networks across a wide range of genres, including HBO and Cinemax.

Residential Voice Services

R esidential voice services represented 4.6%, 5.2% and 6.2% of our total revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Our residential voice service transmits digital voice signals over our network and is an interconnected VoIP service. Our voice services include unlimited local and long-distance calling, voicemail, call waiting, three-way calling, caller ID, anonymous call rejection and other features. Our voice services also provide international calling by the minute.

Business Services

We consider the data, voice and video products we provide to our business customers to be a separate product from our residential versions of these services. Business services represented 13.7%, 12.2% and 11.0% of our total revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We offer services for businesses ranging in size from small to mid-market, in addition to enterprise, wholesale and carrier customers.

Our offerings for small businesses are generally provided over our coaxial network. Our data services offer various options with download speeds ranging from 25 Mbps up to 500 Mbps, with varying upload speeds. Our small business voice solutions range from one line to multi-line options, including the availability of popular calling features like simultaneous ring, hunt groups, selective call forwarding and much more. Business video packages range from a basic service tier to a comprehensive selection including variety, news and sports programming in high-definition.

In 2016, we began delivering data services over an EPON designed for mid-market customers. This shared fiber architecture offers a mixture of symmetrical and asymmetrical internet speeds ranging from 50 Mbps up to 2 Gbps. We expect to introduce EPON in additional markets each year for the foreseeable future.

For enterprise and wholesale customers, we offer dedicated bandwidth via fiber optic technology. Our fiber optic-based products include Dark Fiber in addition to Dedicated Internet Access and Ethernet Private Line with speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 10 Gbps in scalable increments. We also offer Network to Network Interface connections to other carriers at multiple Points of Presence across the United States. In 2017, we began offering Ethernet services over our coaxial network. This service offers symmetrical speeds ranging from 3 Mbps up to 10 Mbps and is available directly to enterprise customers in addition to wholesale and carrier customers.

Advertising

A dvertising sales represented 2.6%, 3.4% and 3.8% of our total revenues for 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Our agreements with each of our programmers provide that we may sell a specified amount of time on our programmers’ channels, to both local and national advertising clients. We offer a full suite of digital advertising products, including website construction, targeted display and both short- and long-form video production.

Competition

We operate in highly competitive, subscriber-driven and rapidly changing environments and compete with a  growing number of entities that provide a broad range of communications products, services and content to subscribers. Our competitors have historically included, and we expect will continue to include, over-the-air reception providers; DBS providers; telephone companies that offer data and video services through digital subscriber line (“DSL”) technology or fiber-to-the-node networks; municipalities with fiber-based networks; and other cable companies that have been granted a franchise to operate in a geographic market in which we are already operating.

Substantially all of our cable systems are in markets in which CenturyLink or AT&T is the established local telephone company and our primary competitor. The remainder of our cable systems are in markets where we compete with various other companies. CenturyLink, AT&T and other companies have overbuilt approximately 30% of our homes passed with fiber-to-the-node or other high-speed networks, such that they are able to offer data, video and voice services, including data services with high access speeds (albeit generally lower when compared to those that we offer). However, less than 3% of the customers in our markets have access to fiber-to-the-home from our competitors, which offer a triple-play product offering comprised of high-speed data, video and voice. Fiber-to-the-home facilitates greater access speeds than we are able to offer through our fiber-to-the-node HFC infrastructure at this time, although in the next few years we expect our access speeds to be comparable to those provided by fiber-to-the-home. In addition, on their own or via strategic partnerships or other arrangements with DBS operators that permit telephone companies to package the video services of DBS operators with telephone companies’ own DSL service, residential voice and wireless voice services, some telephone companies are competing with our video programming and data and voice services. An example of such an arrangement is the merger of AT&T and DirecTV. We also face increasing competition for residential voice services from wireless telephone companies, as some of our customers are replacing our residential voice service completely with wireless voice service. In addition, new entrants with significant financial resources may compete on a larger scale with our video and data services.

A number of municipalities have also announced plans to construct their own data networks with access speeds that match or exceed those of our own through the use of fiber optic technology. In some cases, local government entities and municipal utilities may legally compete with us without obtaining a franchise from a state or local governmental franchising authority (“LFA”), reducing their barriers to entry into our markets. The entrance of municipalities as competitors in our markets would add to the competition we face and could lead to additional customer attrition.

Our video business also faces substantial and increasing competition from other forms of in-home entertainment and recreational activities, including video games, mobile apps and the internet, as well as from other media companies. Internet and other media companies, including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Hulu, Netflix and Sling TV, increasingly offer video programming via OTT streaming on the internet. Because of the significant size and financial resources of such companies, we anticipate that they will continue to invest resources in increasing the availability of video content on the internet.

Employees

As of December 31, 201 7, we had 2,310 full-time employees, and none were represented by a union.

Available Information and Website

Our internet address is www.cableone.net . We make available free of charge through our website, http://ir.cableone.net , copies of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after such documents are electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Printed copies of these documents will be furnished without charge (except exhibits) to any stockholder upon written request addressed to our Secretary at 210 E. Earll Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. The SEC maintains a website, www.sec.gov , that contains the reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Also, the public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The contents of these websites are not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and shall not be deemed “filed” under the Exchange Act. Further, our references to website URLs are intended to be inactive textual references only.

Ms. Julia M. Laulis

Ms. Laulis has been Chair of the Board since January 2018, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board since January 2017 and President of Cable One since January 2015.

Ms. Laulis joined Cable One in 1999 as Director of Marketing – Northwest Division. In 2001, she was named Vice President of Operations for the Southwest Division. In 2004, she accepted the additional responsibility for starting up Cable One’s Phoenix Customer Care Center. In 2008, she was named Chief Operations Officer, and in 2012, she was named Chief Operating Officer of Cable One. In January 2015, she was promoted to President and Chief Operating Officer of Cable One.

Prior to joining Cable One, Ms. Laulis served in various senior marketing positions with Jones Communications. Ms. Laulis began her 30- plus-year career in the cable industry with Hauser Communications.

Ms. Laulis serves on the board s of CableLabs and C-SPAN.

Mr. Michael E. Bowker

Mr. Bowker has been Chief Operating Officer of Cable One since May 2017.

Mr. Bowker joined Cable One in 1999 as Advertising Regional Sales Manager. Mr. Bowker has been a Vice President of Cable One since 2005. He was named Vice President of Sales in 2012 and was promoted to Senior Vice President, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer in 2014.

Prior to joining Cable One, Mr. Bowker was with AT&T Media Services and TCI Cable, where he served in various sales management positions.

Mr. Bowker serves on the board of the American Cable Association.

Mr. Kevin P. Coyle

Mr. Coyle has been Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cable One since March 2015.

Mr. Coyle has more than 30 years of financial and operations experience. Prior to joining Cable One, he served with Elauwit Networks, a private provider of telecom services to multi-dwelling units (“MDUs”) as Chief Financial Officer from September 2014 to March 2015 and as Senior Vice President – Business Development from May 2014 to September 2014. From 2012 to 2015, Mr. Coyle served as a director and as the chairman of the audit committee of WPCS International Incorporated, a publicly traded provider of fixed wireless technology services for corporations. Previously, Mr. Coyle performed strategic planning for Charter Communications and Comcast Communications in their MDU and business sales area as Senior Vice President – Business Development of Comcast from January 2011 to June 2011 and as a Principal with KPC Consulting, an independent, private consulting firm, from 2009 to January 2011 and from June 2011 to 2014. Before that, Mr. Coyle served as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer at Jones Intercable, a publicly traded cable television company with 1.4 million subscribers that was acquired by Comcast in 1999. Mr. Coyle has been the Chief Executive Officer of two start-up companies and the Chief Financial Officer of two others in the telecommunications and high-tech fields.

Mr. Stephen A. Fox

Mr. Fox has been Senior Vice President and Chief Network Officer of Cable One since July 2015.

Mr. Fox started his career in 1988 as a programmer/operator for Cable One. Mr. Fox ’s current areas of responsibility include long range planning and the strategic evolution of technology roadmaps related to products, internal and external networks and capital allocation. Prior to his current position, Mr. Fox was named Senior Vice President, Chief Technology Officer in 2008.

Mr. Eric M. Lardy

Mr. Lardy has been a Senior Vice President of Cable One since January 2017.

Mr. Lardy joined Cable One in 1997 as a manager in one of our systems and held a variety of positions of increasing responsibility in marketing, operations, and system general management. Mr. Lardy was named Vice President, Strategic Planning and Finance in 2014 and was promoted to Senior Vice President in January 2017.

Mr. Charles B. McDonald

Mr. McDonald has been Senior Vice President, Operations of Cable One since January 2016.

Mr. McDonald joined Cable One in 2008 as an Industrial Engineer. Mr. McDonald was named Vice President, Customer Service Operations in 2014 and was promoted to Senior Vice President, Operations in January 2016.

Prior to joining Cable One, Mr. McDonald worked as a Senior Process Engineer for Three-Five Systems and Brillian Corp.

Regulation and Legislation

General

Our data, video and voice operations are subject to various requirements imposed by the U.S. local, state and Federal governmental authorities. The regulation of certain cable rates pursuant to procedures established by Congress has negatively affected our revenue. Certain other legislative and regulatory matters discussed in this section also have the potential to adversely affect our data, video and voice businesses. The following discussion does not purport to be a complete summary of all of the provisions of U.S. Federal and state law that may affect our operations. Proposals for additional or revised regulations and requirements are pending before Congress, state legislatures, and state and Federal regulatory agencies. We generally cannot predict whether new legislation or regulations, court action, or a change in the extent of application or enforcement of current laws and regulations would have an adverse impact on our operations.

Broadband Internet Access Service

Broadband internet access service, which we currently offer on all of our cable systems, is subject to some regulation at the Federal level, and is not subject to state or local government regulation at this time.

Regulatory Reclassification and Network Neutrality Regulation . In 2015, the FCC elected, by a 3-2 vote, to reclassify broadband internet access service as a “telecommunications service” and to subject the service to network neutrality and certain common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. Those regulations: (1) prohibited broadband internet access service providers from blocking access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices; (2) prohibited broadband internet access service providers from impairing or degrading lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, applications or services; (3) prohibited broadband internet access service providers from favoring lawful traffic from one provider of internet content over lawful traffic of another content provider in exchange for consideration; (4) established a new “general conduct standard” that prohibited broadband internet access service providers from unreasonably interfering with or unreasonably disadvantaging the ability of consumers to select, access and use the lawful internet content, applications, services or devices of their choosing; and (5) required broadband internet access service providers to disclose information regarding network management, performance and commercial terms of the service to their customers. The Order was upheld in the courts, but in September 2017, several parties, including the American Cable Association and the NCTA, filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Responses to the petitions are due March 5, 2018. However, in December 2017, the FCC rescinded the majority of the Open Internet rules previously adopted in the Order, with the exception of the disclosure requirements. Several parties have challenged the FCC’s new rules in various Federal courts. Congress and several states also have proposed legislation regarding the net neutrality rules. Net neutrality obligations could cause us to incur certain compliance costs, and the enforcement or interpretation of these new obligations could adversely affect our business. We cannot predict whether or when future changes to the regulatory framework will occur at the FCC, in Congress, at the state level or in the courts. We also cannot predict whether or to what extent the rules as revised by the FCC, Congress, the states or the courts may affect our operations or impose costs on our business.

Privacy. Broadband internet access service is subject to many of the same U.S. Federal and state privacy laws that apply to other electronic communications. These include the U.S. Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which addresses interceptions of electronic communications that are in transit; the Stored Communications Act, which addresses acquisitions of electronic data in storage; and other Federal and state privacy laws and regulations. As the collection and use of consumer data becomes more prevalent in the communications industry, our compliance obligations may grow. In November 2016, the FCC adopted new rules for broadband internet access services to protect the privacy of certain information broadband internet access service providers obtain about their customers. However, in April 2017, the broadband privacy and data security rules adopted by the FCC in 2016 were repealed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, which also restricts the FCC from adopting “substantially similar” rules in the future. In September 2017, the FCC reinstated its previous rules applicable to customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”) for voice services. In addition, privacy legislation has been proposed at the state and Federal level, some of which would require broadband service providers to apply heightened privacy and security protections to customer data. We cannot predict whether, when or to what extent these obligations may impose costs on our business.

I n addition to FCC privacy regulations governing broadband internet access service, the Federal Trade Commission also may exercise authority over privacy by using its existing authority over unfair and deceptive acts or practices to apply greater restrictions on the collection and use of personally identifiable and other information relating to consumers. It also has undertaken numerous enforcement actions against parties that do not provide sufficient security protections against the loss or unauthorized disclosure of this type of information. We also are subject to stringent data security and data retention requirements that apply to website operators and online services directed to children under 13 years of age, or that knowingly collect or post personal information from children under 13 years of age. Other privacy-oriented laws have been extended by courts to online video providers and are increasingly being used in privacy lawsuits, including class actions, against providers of video materials online. We cannot predict whether, when, or to what extent these obligations may impose costs on our business.

We are also subject to state and Federal laws and regulations regarding data security that primarily apply to sensitive personal information that could be used to commit identity theft. Most states have security breach notification laws that generally require a business to give notice to consumers and government agencies when certain information has been disclosed due to a security breach, and the FCC has adopted security breach rules for voice services. Several states have also enacted general data security requirements to safeguard consumer information, including the proper disposal of consumer information. We cannot predict whether, when or to what extent these obligations may impose costs on our business.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Owners of copyrights and trademarks actively seek to prevent use of the internet to violate their rights. For example, copyright and trademark owners assert claims that a customer used an internet service or resources accessed via the internet to post, download or disseminate copyrighted music, movies, software or other content without the consent of the copyright owner or to seek to profit from the use of the goodwill associated with another person’s trademark. In some cases, copyright and trademark owners have sought to recover damages from the broadband internet access service provider, as well as or instead of the customer. The law relating to the potential liability of broadband internet access service providers in these circumstances is unsettled. In 1998, Congress adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants broadband internet access service providers protection against certain claims of copyright infringement resulting from the actions of customers if the internet provider complies with certain requirements. So far, Congress has not adopted similar immunity for broadband internet access service providers for trademark infringement claims.

Business Data Services . In April 2017, the FCC adopted a new deregulatory framework for Business Data Services (“BDS”), formerly known as “special access” services. These services provide dedicated point-to-point transmission of data at certain guaranteed speeds and service levels using high-capacity connections. The new framework eliminates pricing regulation for certain types of BDS and establishes a competitive market test for determining whether other types of BDS should remain subject to pricing regulation. Several parties have challenged the FCC’s decision in Federal court. At this time, we cannot predict how the FCC’s decision, or any modifications by the court, will affect our business.

Cable

Title VI of the U.S. Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”), establishes the principal Federal regulatory framework for our operation of cable systems and for the provision of our video services. The Communications Act allocates primary responsibility for enforcing the Federal policies among the FCC and state and local governmental authorities.

Franchising. We are required to obtain franchises from state or local governmental authorities to operate our cable systems. Those franchises typically are non-exclusive and limited in time, contain various conditions and limitations and provide for the payment of fees to the local authority, determined generally as a percentage of revenues. Failure to comply with all of the terms and conditions of a franchise may give rise to rights of termination by the franchising authority. The FCC has adopted rules designed to expedite the process of awarding competitive franchises and relieving applicants for competing franchises of some locally-imposed franchise obligations. This development, which is especially beneficial to new entrants, is expected to continue to accelerate the competition we are experiencing in the video service marketplace. On July 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded to the FCC its prior determination that local franchising authorities are prohibited from regulating non-telecommunications services provided by incumbent cable operators and that the term “franchise fees” under the statute includes all “in-kind” payments. We cannot predict the outcome of the remand to the FCC, and whether or to what extent the rules as revised by the FCC or the courts may affect our operations or impose costs on our business.

Rate Regulation. FCC regulations prohibit LFAs or the FCC from regulating the rates that cable systems charge for certain levels of video cable service, equipment and service calls when those cable systems are subject to “effective competition.” In 2015, the FCC revised its rate regulations to create a presumption that all cable systems are subject to the effective-competition exemption unless proven otherwise. In July 2017, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s decision on appeal.

“Must-Carry” and Retransmission Consent and Content Rules.  U.S. Federal law provides that a television broadcast station may, subject to certain limitations, insist on carriage of its signal on cable systems located within the station’s prescribed area. As a result, certain of our cable systems must carry broadcast stations that we might not otherwise have elected to carry.

In other cases, we have been required to provide consideration to broadcasters to obtain retransmission consent, such as commitments to carry other program services offered by a station or an affiliated company, to purchase advertising on a station or to provide advertising availabilities on cable to a station, or to provide cash compensation. This development results in increased operating costs for cable systems, which ultimately increases the rates cable systems charge subscribers. In March and November 2014, the FCC and Congress imposed new requirements in this area including restrictions on broadcasters ’ ability to jointly negotiate with cable providers for carriage of their stations, and the FCC is seeking comment on possible changes to regulations in this area, which could affect our business. In July 2016, the FCC announced that it would not adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations for retransmission consent, but it would be prepared to assist in negotiations when necessary. In September 2014, the FCC repealed its sports blackout rules, which prohibited cable and satellite operators from retransmitting any sports event that was blacked out on a local broadcast station.

Media Ownership Rules . In November 2017, the FCC took steps to relax its media ownership rules, which, among other things, would eliminate restrictions that limit the number of commonly owned television stations per market and restrict newspaper/broadcast and radio/television station cross-ownership. These rules have not yet gone into effect and have been challenged in Federal court, which could delay their implementation. In December 2017, the FCC announced a further proceeding that could eventually lead to additional relaxation of the FCC’s media ownership rules, including the cap on the number of television stations that one entity can control nationwide. If some or all of these changes or proposed changes were to go into effect, it would increase the negotiating leverage that broadcasters hold in retransmission consent negotiations and thereby possibly increase the amounts we pay to broadcasters for retransmission fees.

Independent Programming. On September 29, 2016, the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to adopt rules prohibiting certain practices that may affect the relationship between multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”), such as cable companies and independent programmers. The proposal examines whether certain “most favored nation” and alternative distribution method provisions in program carriage agreements should be prohibited, and whether program bundling practices by large programmers affect the ability of MVPDs to carry independent programmers. We cannot predict whether the newly-constituted FCC will pursue this proceeding, and, if so, how it will proceed.

Pole Attachments. U.S. Federal law requires most telephone and power utilities to charge reasonable rates to cable operators for utilizing space on utility poles or in underground conduits. In May 2010 and again in April 2011, the FCC adopted new requirements relating to pole access and construction practices that were expected to improve the ability of cable operators to attach to utility poles on a timely basis and to lower the pole attachment rate for telecommunications services. In October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lower court’s decision to uphold the FCC’s pole attachment regulations. The FCC further revised its pole attachment rules in November 2015 to adjust the formula for calculating pole rental rates, which resulted in similar rates for telecommunications attachments and cable attachments, and eliminated the ability of utility companies to justify higher rates for pole attachments used to provide broadband internet access service. In July 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the FCC’s November 2015 pole attachment decision. The utility companies filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2017, and responses to the petition are due March 9, 2018. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, or how this proceeding may affect our operations or impose costs on our business. In the meantime, the appropriate method for calculating pole attachment rates for cable operators that provide VoIP services remains unclear, although the FCC’s rule revisions to equalize pole attachment rates and its December 2017 reversal of its previous reclassification of broadband internet access services make this issue less significant. We cannot predict the extent to which these and other rule changes will affect our ability over time to secure timely access to poles at reasonable rates for our data, voice and video services. As a general matter, changes to our pole attachment rate structure could significantly increase our annual pole attachment costs.

U.S. Federal Copyright Issues.   The U.S. Federal Copyright Act of 1976, as amended (the “Copyright Act”), gives cable systems the ability, under certain terms and conditions and assuming that any applicable retransmission consents have been obtained, to retransmit the signals of television stations pursuant to a compulsory copyright license.

The U.S. Federal Copyright Office is considering requests for clarification and revisions of certain cable compulsory copyright license reporting requirements, and from time to time, other revisions to the cable compulsory copyright rules are considered. We cannot predict the outcome of any such inquiries. However, it is possible that changes in the rules or copyright compulsory license fee computations or compliance procedures could have an adverse effect on our business by, for example, increasing copyright compulsory license fee costs or by causing us to reduce or discontinue carriage of certain broadcast signals that we currently carry on a discretionary basis.

Telephone Company Competition.   U.S. Federal law permits telephone companies to offer video programming services. Over the past decade, telephone companies have pursued multiple strategies to enter the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming services, such as merging with DBS operators, in the case of AT&T and DirecTV, or obtaining local franchise agreements. Increased competition from telephone companies that provide competing services could have a material effect on our business.

Over-the-Top (OTT) Video Programming.   The continued proliferation of broadband services in the United States has enabled cable programmers and broadcast television stations and networks to “stream” their video content to consumers over the internet. Although we have benefited generally from the growth in broadband due to our role as a provider of broadband services, the continued and growing availability of cable programming and broadcast television content on the internet may result in less demand for our video cable service offering. Some providers of cable service are marketing their own version of OTT video programming, thus enabling their subscribers to access cable programming outside of their home or business. For example, Verizon Wireless offers the ability to stream NFL games on its smartphones over the internet. Some fixed and wireless broadband providers are excluding certain streamed content from metered data charges or data limits in an effort to make their broadband service more attractive to consumers. In addition, online video distributors and other OTT video distributors have begun to stream broadcast programming over the internet. In some cases, distributors streamed broadcast programming without the consent of broadcasters and copyright owners. Broadcasters challenged this practice, and in June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that such streaming requires the consent of the applicable copyright owner. However, there is a potential for other streaming services to attempt to enter the market, and in December 2014, the FCC opened a proceeding concerning how OTT providers should be classified for purposes of the FCC’s rules. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, nor related litigation, nor how widespread these practices may become or the extent to which the integrated functionality and ease of use of the cable platform will continue to appeal to the majority of our subscribers.

Wireless Services.  In 2017, the FCC completed an auction of additional spectrum, including spectrum in the television broadcast band, for use by wireless broadband providers. The FCC process provided for both the auction of spectrum and a “repacking,” whereby certain broadcast stations will move to new channel allotments so as to free up a nationwide block of spectrum for wireless broadband use. The availability of more spectrum to enable wireless video services over time will create additional competitive alternatives to cable services. The auction ended in March 2017, and in April 2017, the FCC began the process of transitioning broadcast stations to new channel assignments. MVPDs, such as us, are required to submit an estimate of the costs incurred to continue carrying stations that were reassigned to new channels. We cannot predict the amount of funding, if any, that we might receive from the disbursement of these funds.

Set-Top Boxes.   Congress, the FCC and other government agencies have for some time been developing and implementing regulations that affect the types of set-top boxes that cable operators can lease or deploy to their subscribers. Prior to 2015, FCC rules banned the integration of security and non-security function in set-top boxes and required MVPDs to allow third-party vendors to provide set-top boxes with basic converter functions. In 2015, Congress repealed the integration ban and mandated that the FCC establish a working group to identify, report on and recommend a successor technology-and platform-neutral security solution. In February 2016, the FCC opened a rulemaking to consider proposals that would require any retail video device to work on any cable operator’s system, but this item was removed from active FCC review. We cannot predict if or when new changes may be proposed, what effect such changes may have on our operations, or if they will increase our costs and impair our ability to deliver programming to our customers.

Disability Access.   In September 2010, Congress passed the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (the “CVAA”). The CVAA directs the FCC to impose additional accessibility requirements on cable operators. For example, cable operators that serve 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 50 hours of video description per calendar quarter, during primetime or on children’s programming, on each channel on which they carry one of the top five national non-broadcast networks. In addition, cable operators of all sizes must pass through video description that is provided for each broadcast station or non-broadcast network that they carry. Compliance imposes certain costs on us. The CVAA also directs the FCC to adopt rules to help ensure that persons with disabilities have access to video programming and related information. In October 2013, the FCC adopted a requirement that equipment used by consumers to access video programming and other services offered by cable operators make on-screen text menus and guides for the display or selection of video programming audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The compliance deadline for these new rules was December 2016 (subject to certain exceptions). In October 2013, the FCC also initiated a proceeding to consider additional rules. In February 2014, the FCC issued an order adopting closed captioning quality standards for video programming distributors (“VPDs”) and, in February 2016, the FCC amended its rules to allocate responsibility for the quality of closed captioning between video programmers and VPDs. The FCC also revised its procedures for the handling of complaints regarding closed captioning quality. We cannot predict any further actions the FCC will take in this proceeding or the extent to which any such requirements may impose new costs on us.

In 201 7, the FCC increased the amount of video-described programming for covered broadcast and cable channels from 50 hours to 87.5 hours and the number of cable networks that are required to provide video-described programming. We cannot predict how these new obligations could impose costs on our business.

ATSC 3.0 . In November 2017, the FCC adopted new rules to authorize television stations to use the “Next Generation TV” broadcast television standard, ATSC 3.0. Should use of the new standard become widespread, we could be required to deploy new equipment and our carriage obligations may be impacted. We cannot predict the effect that use of the new standard could have on our equipment costs, carriage obligations, or retransmission fees.

Other Requirements.   The FCC regulates various other aspects of cable operations, including certain terms for commercial leased access, signal leakage, distant broadcast station signals and technical standards. We cannot predict whether, when or to what extent changes to these and other regulations may affect our operations or costs.

Voice

Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP).  Cable companies, including Cable One and others, offer VoIP service, which permits users to make voice calls over broadband communications networks, including the internet, to recipients on the public switched telephone network and other broadband communications networks. U.S. Federal law preempts state and local regulatory barriers to the offering of voice service by cable companies and others, and the FCC and U.S. Federal courts generally have preempted state laws that seek to regulate or classify VoIP.

The FCC has held that VoIP services are IP-enabled services, which are interstate in nature and thus subject exclusively to the  FCC’s U.S. Federal jurisdiction and not to state regulation. This decision was upheld on appeal, although the FCC has an ongoing proceeding to consider whether VoIP services provided by cable companies and others are properly classified as an “information service,” “telecommunications service” or some other new category of service. This determination, once made, could have numerous regulatory implications for cable companies that provide interconnected VoIP services, including us. Although the FCC has yet to ascribe a regulatory definition to VoIP services, the FCC nevertheless has imposed a number of obligations on interconnected VoIP service providers, some of which are discussed more fully below.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) has ruled that the VoIP service of another cable operator should be classified and regulated as a telecommunications service in the state, subject to entry and rate regulation. In May 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota held that that such operator’s VoIP service is an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service,” which prevents the Minnesota PUC from regulating VoIP as a telecommunications service in Minnesota. The Minnesota PUC has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The FCC has supported the cable operator in its appeal. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or how this proceeding may affect our operations or impose costs on our business.

Emergency 911 Services.   The FCC has ruled that an interconnected VoIP service provider that enables its customers to make calls to and receive calls from persons who use the public switched telephone network must provide its customers with the same enhanced 911 (“E911”) features that traditional telephone and wireless companies are obligated to provide. This requirement was upheld on appeal. In January 2015, the FCC established indoor location requirements when E911 calls are made by interconnected VoIP subscribers. The FCC also requires certain providers of facilities-based fixed, residential voice services, which includes interconnected VoIP service providers, to offer backup power options to consumers, and to inform consumers of the availability of such options.

CALEA.   FCC regulations require providers of interconnected VoIP service to comply with the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which requires covered entities and their equipment suppliers to deploy equipment that law enforcement officials can access readily for lawful wiretap purposes.

Universal Service.   The FCC has determined that interconnected VoIP service providers must contribute to the U.S. Federal Universal Service Fund (the “USF”). The amount of a company’s USF contribution is based on a percentage of revenues earned from end-user interstate and international interconnected VoIP services. We are permitted to recover these contributions from our customers. In October 2011, the FCC adopted an order and new rules intended to transition the USF so that it supports the build out of broadband, rather than telecommunications facilities. The order principally addressed the manner in which universal service funds will be distributed to network operators for broadband build out. In April 2012, the FCC initiated a proceeding that focused on reforming the nature and manner in which entities should contribute to the USF and at what levels. We cannot predict whether and how such reform will occur and the extent to which it may affect providers of VoIP services, including us and our competitors. The FCC’s 2011 universal service reform order was subject to both reconsideration requests and appeals, and in May 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the order in its entirety. A number of parties filed petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of that decision, but the Supreme Court declined to review the case. In November 2010, the FCC determined that states may impose state USF fees on interconnected VoIP service providers subject to certain limitations and requirements. State USF contributions are based on a percentage of revenues earned from end-user intrastate interconnected VoIP services, and we are typically permitted to recover these contributions from our customers. We cannot predict whether or how the imposition of such state-based universal service fees will affect our operations and business. In addition, the FCC has focused on subsidizing broadband deployment, and this shift could help some of our competitors. For example, the FCC substantially revised the program that provides universal service support for services to schools and libraries to shift support from voice services to broadband services and the deployment of Wi-Fi networks. Similarly, the FCC has expanded its Lifeline subsidy program for low-income consumers to include broadband services in addition to voice services and is currently considering further changes that may affect the Lifeline program. We cannot predict whether or how these programs will be changed.

Intercarrier Compensation.   The order and new rules adopted by the FCC in October 2011 in connection with universal service reform also addressed intercarrier compensation and specified that “VoIP-PSTN traffic,” that is, traffic exchanged over public switched telephone network facilities that originates and/or terminates in IP format, which includes interconnected VoIP traffic, is subject to intercarrier compensation obligations either on the basis of specified default charges or through negotiated rates. The FCC’s order was subject to both reconsideration requests and appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the order in its entirety. A number of parties filed petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of that decision, but the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Future FCC determinations regarding the rates, terms and conditions for transporting and terminating such traffic could have a profound and material effect on the profitability of providing voice and data services.

Customer Proprietary Network Information.   In 2007, the FCC adopted rules expanding the protection of CPNI and extending CPNI protection requirements to providers of interconnected VoIP service. CPNI is information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, location and amount of a voice customer’s use. These requirements generally have increased the cost of providing interconnected VoIP service, as providers now must implement various safeguards to protect CPNI from unauthorized disclosure.

Access for Persons with Disabilities.   FCC regulations require providers of interconnected VoIP services to comply with all disability access requirements that apply to telecommunications carriers, including the provision of telecommunications relay services for persons with speech or hearing impairments. The FCC also has adopted reporting requirements associated with disability access obligations. We and other interconnected VoIP service providers must also contribute to the interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund to support such access. These requirements generally have had the effect of increasing the cost of providing VoIP services.

Service Discontinuance and Outage Obligations.   In 2009, the FCC adopted rules subjecting providers of interconnected VoIP services to the same service discontinuance requirements applicable to providers of wireline telecommunication services. In 2012, the FCC adopted mandatory outage reporting requirements for interconnected VoIP service providers, which apply when customers of interconnected VoIP service lose service or connectivity and, as a result, are unable to access 911 service. Along with other FCC actions described in this section, which impose legacy telecom obligations on interconnected VoIP providers, this development will subject our interconnected VoIP services to greater regulation and, therefore, greater burdens and costs.

Regulatory Fees.  The FCC requires interconnected VoIP service providers to contribute to shared costs of FCC regulation through an annual regulatory fee assessment. These fees have increased our cost of providing VoIP services. The FCC from time to time revises its regulatory fees and sometimes creates new fees. We cannot predict when or the extent to which the FCC will adopt new rules or regulatory fees affecting VoIP service providers, which could affect our cost of doing business.

Local Number Portability.   Providers of interconnected VoIP services and their “numbering partners” must ensure that their subscribers have the ability to port their telephone numbers when changing service providers. We, along with other providers of interconnected VoIP service, must contribute funds to cover the shared costs of local number portability and the costs of North American Numbering Plan Administration. In June 2015, the FCC adopted rules requiring additional numbering requirements, such as allowing consumers access to abbreviated dialing codes like 211 and 311 in certain circumstances, to be applied to interconnected VoIP service providers. Although consumers’ ability to port their existing telephone numbers to interconnected VoIP service has created additional opportunities for us to gain voice customers, the local number portability and associated rules overall have had the effect of increasing the cost of providing VoIP service.

Rural Calling Issues. In October 2013, the FCC adopted new rules to combat problems with the completion of long-distance calls to rural areas. The new rules apply detailed record keeping, record retention and reporting requirements on all voice providers, including VoIP service providers, subject to certain exceptions. The rules also prohibit VoIP service providers (and other voice providers) from using false audible ringing when originating calls. Compliance with these new rules could have the effect of increasing the cost of providing VoIP services.

State  and Local Taxes

The Internet Tax Freedom Act prohibits most states and localities from imposing taxes on internet access service charges. Legislative and administrative proceedings in some states and localities have imposed or are considering adopting changes to general business taxes, central assessments for property tax and new taxes and fees applicable to our services. Often, DBS and other competitors that deliver their services over the internet do not face similar state tax and fee burdens. In addition, the FCC’s 2015 reclassification of broadband internet access services as Title II telecommunications services may cause or allow, directly or indirectly, some states and localities to seek to impose additional taxes and fees on our data service. However, such state and local actions may be hindered by the FCC’s decision to rescind the majority of the rules adopted in the Order.