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 programming contracts, network and connectivity commitments, 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 December 31, 2019. The commitments included in this table do not reflect any liabilities that are included on our December 31, 2019 consolidated balance sheet.



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

Programming commitments	$	1,165.0	$	887.4	$	355.3	$	17.5	$	14.2	$	30.4	$	2,469.8
Network and connectivity commitments	715.3		313.3		98.3		46.9		39.9		736.1		1,949.8
Purchase commitments	668.0		181.5		60.8		35.9		17.3		25.1		988.6
Other commitments	30.0		3.4		2.0		0.3		0.3		1.0		37.0
Total	$	2,578.3	$	1,385.6	$	516.4	$	100.6	$	71.7	$	792.6	$	5,445.2

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 portion of our operating costs, and we expect this will continue to be the case in future periods. In this regard, our total programming and copyright costs aggregated $1,702.4 million, $1,671.4 million and $1,470.2 million during 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

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

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 2019, 2018 and 2017, see note 8. For information regarding our defined benefit plans, see note 17.

Interkabel Acquisition. On November 26, 2007, Telenet and 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 ($22.5 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 imposes a 17% reduction in monthly wholesale cable resale access prices for an interim period. On July 5, 2019, the Belgium Regulatory Authorities published for consultation a draft decision regarding “reasonable access tariffs” that will replace the interim prices. As applicable to Telenet, the proposed tariffs represent an estimated additional 25% reduction compared to the interim prices. In September 2019, Telenet submitted its comments to the Belgium Regulatory Authorities opposing the “reasonable access tariffs.” The Belgium Regulatory Authorities originally indicated their intention to adopt a final decision in the fourth quarter of 2019, with the application of new tariffs in early 2020, however the European Commission review process, which must occur before adoption of a final decision, has yet to be undertaken.

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 has challenged the 2018 Decision in the Brussels Court of Appeal and also initiated an action in the European Court of Justice against the European Commission’s decision not to challenge the 2018 Decision. The proceedings before the European Court of Justice, however, have been withdrawn by Telenet in order to avoid undue delays in the Brussels Court of Appeal case. 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), which is included in impairment, restructuring and other operating items, net, in our consolidated statement of operations. Virgin Media is currently considering whether to appeal this decision further.

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

UPC Austria Matter. As further described in note 6, we completed the sale of UPC Austria on July 31, 2018. 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 ($79.2 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 ($23.1 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 £17 million ($23 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. These requirements could have a material adverse impact on our revenue and Adjusted OIBDA in 2020 and future periods. For additional information see Item 1. Business - Regulatory Matters included in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition to the foregoing items, we have contingent liabilities related to matters arising in the ordinary course of business including (i) legal proceedings, (ii) issues involving VAT and wage, property, withholding and other tax issues and (iii) disputes over interconnection, programming, copyright and channel carriage fees. While we generally expect that the amounts required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from any estimated amounts we have accrued, no assurance can be given that the resolution of one or more of these contingencies will not result in a material impact on our results of operations, cash flows