(Mark One)

For the year ended December 31, 2004

For the Transition Period From            to

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act: None
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:
Class A Common Stock, $.001 Par Value

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2 ) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes þ No o

The aggregate market value of the registrant of outstanding Class A Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant at June 30, 2004 was approximately $1.1 billion, computed based on the closing sale price as quoted on the NASDAQ National Market on that date. For purposes of this calculation only, directors, executive officers and the principal controlling shareholder or entities controlled by such controlling shareholder of the registrant are deemed to be affiliates of the registrant.

There were 304,795,728 shares of Class A Common Stock outstanding as of January 31, 2005. There were 50,000 shares of Class B Common Stock outstanding as of the same date.

Documents Incorporated By Reference

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
FORM 10-K — FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This annual report on Form 10-K is for the year ended December 31, 2004. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) allows us to “incorporate by reference” information that we file with the SEC, which means that we can disclose important information to you by referring you directly to those documents. Information incorporated by reference is considered to be part of this annual report. In addition, information that we file with the SEC in the future will automatically update and supersede information contained in this annual report. In this annual report, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and their subsidiaries.

i

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS:

This annual report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), regarding, among other things, our plans, strategies and prospects, both business and financial, including, without limitation, the forward-looking statements set forth in the “Focus for 2005” section under Part I, Item 1. “Business,” “Overview of Operations” and the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” sections under Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this annual report. Although we believe that our plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by these forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or realize these plans, intentions or expectations. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, without limitation, the factors described under “Certain Trends and Uncertainties” under Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this annual report. Many of the forward-looking statements contained in this annual report may be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “will,” “may,” “intend,” “estimated” and “potential,” among others. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements we make in this annual report are set forth in this annual report and in other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and include, but are not limited to:

	•	our ability to sustain and grow revenues and cash flows from operating activities by offering video, high-speed data, telephony and other services and to maintain a stable customer base, particularly in the face of increasingly aggressive competition from other service providers;
	•	the availability of funds to meet interest payment obligations under our debt and to fund our operations and necessary capital expenditures, either through cash flows from operating activities, further borrowings or other sources;
	•	our ability to comply with all covenants in our indentures and credit facilities, any violation of which would result in a violation of the applicable facility or indenture and could trigger a default of other obligations under cross-default provisions;
	•	our ability to pay or refinance debt as it becomes due;
	•	the results of the pending grand jury investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, and our ability to reach a final approved settlement with respect to the putative class action, the unconsolidated class action, and derivative shareholders litigation against us on the terms of the stipulations of settlement described herein;
	•	our ability to obtain programming at reasonable prices or to pass programming cost increases on to our customers;
	•	general business conditions, economic uncertainty or slowdown; and
	•	the effects of governmental regulation, including but not limited to local franchise taxing authorities, on our business.

All forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. We are under no duty or obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this annual report.

ii

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Introduction

Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”) is a broadband communications company operating in the United States, with approximately 6.22 million customers at December 31, 2004. Through our broadband network of coaxial and fiber optic cable, we offer our customers traditional cable video programming (analog and digital, which we refer to as “video” service), high-speed cable Internet access (which we refer to as “high-speed data service”), advanced broadband cable services (such as video on demand (“VOD”), high definition television service and interactive television) and, in some of our markets, we offer telephone service (which we refer to as “telephony”). See “Business — Products and Services” for further description of these terms, including “customers.”

At December 31, 2004, we served approximately 5.99 million analog video customers, of which approximately 2.67 million were also digital video customers. We also served approximately 1.88 million high-speed data customers (including approximately 217,400 who received only high-speed data services). We also provided telephony service to approximately 45,400 customers as of that date.

At December 31, 2004, our investment in cable properties, long-term debt, accumulated deficit and total shareholders’ deficit were $16.2 billion, $19.5 billion, $9.2 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively. Our working capital deficit was $295 million at December 31, 2004. For the year ended December 31, 2004, our revenues, net loss applicable to common stock and loss per common share were approximately $5.0 billion, $4.3 billion and $14.47, respectively.

We have a history of net losses. Further, we expect to continue to report net losses for the foreseeable future. Our net losses are principally attributable to insufficient revenue to cover the interest costs we incur because of our high level of debt, the depreciation expenses that we incur resulting from the capital investments we have made in our cable properties, and the amortization and impairment of our franchise intangibles. We expect that these expenses (other than impairment of franchises) will remain significant, and we therefore expect to continue to report net losses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, because minority interest in Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Charter Holdco”) was substantially eliminated at December 31, 2003, beginning in the first quarter of 2004, we absorb substantially all future losses before income taxes that otherwise would have been allocated to minority interest. This resulted in an additional $2.4 billion of net loss for the year ended December 31, 2004. Under our existing capital structure, future losses will continue to be absorbed by Charter.

Charter was organized as a Delaware corporation in 1999 and completed an initial public offering of its Class A common stock in November 1999. Charter is a holding company whose principal assets are an approximate 47% equity interest and a 100% voting interest in Charter Holdco, the direct parent of Charter Communications Holdings, LLC (“Charter Holdings”). Charter also holds certain preferred equity and indebtedness of Charter Holdco that mirror the terms of securities issued by Charter. Charter’s only business is to act as the sole manager of Charter Holdco and its subsidiaries. As sole manager, Charter controls the affairs of Charter Holdco and its subsidiaries. Certain of our subsidiaries commenced operations under the “Charter Communications” name in 1994, and our growth to date has been primarily due to acquisitions and business combinations, most notably acquisitions completed from 1999 through 2001, pursuant to which we acquired a total of approximately 5.5 million customers. We do not expect to make any significant acquisitions in the foreseeable future, but plan to evaluate opportunities to consolidate our operations through exchanges of cable systems with other cable operators, as they arise. We may also sell certain assets from time to time. Paul G. Allen owns 53% of Charter Holdco through affiliated entities. His membership units are convertible at any time for shares of our Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis. Paul G. Allen controls Charter with an as-converted common equity interest of approximately 57% and a voting control interest of 93% as of December 31, 2004.

Our principal executive offices are located at Charter Plaza, 12405 Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63131. Our telephone number is (314) 965-0555 and we have a website accessible at www.charter.com. Since January 1, 2002, our annual reports, quarterly reports and current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments thereto, have been made available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed. The information posted on our website is not incorporated into this annual report.

1

Certain Significant Developments in 2004

In 2004, we completed several transactions that improved our liquidity. Our efforts in this regard have resulted in the completion of a number of transactions in 2004, as follows:

	•	the December 2004 sale by our subsidiaries, CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp., of $550 million of senior floating rate notes due 2010;
	•	the November 2004 sale by Charter of $862.5 million of 5.875% convertible senior notes due 2009;
	•	the December 2004 redemption of all of our 5.75% convertible senior notes due 2005 ($588 million principal amount);
	•	the April 2004 sale of $1.5 billion of senior second-lien notes by our subsidiary, Charter Communications Operating, LLC (“Charter Operating”), together with the concurrent refinancing of its credit facilities; and
	•	the sale in the first half of 2004 of non-core cable systems for a total of $733 million, the proceeds of which were used to reduce indebtedness.

Recent Events

CC V Holdings, LLC Notes

In February 2005, CC V Holdings, LLC called for redemption all of its outstanding notes, at 103.958% of principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the anticipated date of redemption, on March 14, 2005. The total cost of redemption is expected to be approximately $122 million and is expected to be funded through borrowings under our credit facilities.

Management Changes

On January 17, 2005, Robert P. May was appointed as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Charter, replacing Carl E. Vogel who, effective on the same date, resigned his position as President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Charter and each of Charter’s subsidiaries for which Mr. Vogel served as a director and officer. Additionally, Mr. May was appointed to the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee of Charter’s board of directors and will continue to serve on the Board’s Strategic Planning Committee. He was also appointed as an officer and director of Charter’s subsidiaries for which Mr. Vogel was an officer and director.

Charter’s board of directors has formed an Executive Search Committee to oversee Charter’s search for a permanent President and Chief Executive Officer.

Derek Chang, our Executive Vice President of Finance and Strategy and Interim co-Chief Financial Officer, has informed Charter of his intention to resign effective April 15, 2005.

Sale of CCO Holdings, LLC Senior Floating Rate Notes

On December 15, 2004, our subsidiaries, CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp., issued and sold $550 million senior floating rate notes due 2010 in a private transaction to qualified institutional buyers in reliance on Rule 144A and outside the United States to non-U.S. persons in reliance on Regulation S. The notes have an annual interest rate of LIBOR plus 4.125%, reset and payable quarterly. The net proceeds from the sale of the notes were used to pay down bank debt and for general corporate purposes.

Sale of 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes

On November 22, 2004, we issued $862.5 million original principal amount of 5.875% convertible senior notes due 2009, which are convertible into shares of our Class A common stock, par value $.001 per share, at a rate of 413.2231 shares per $1,000 principal amount of notes (or approximately $2.42 per share), subject to adjustment in certain circumstances. On December 23, 2004, we used a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the notes to redeem all of our outstanding 5.75% convertible senior notes due 2005 (total principal amount of $588 million). We also used a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the notes to purchase certain U.S. government securities which were pledged as security for the notes and which we expect to use to fund the first six interest payments on the notes.

For additional terms of the notes, see “Description of Certain Indebtedness — Outstanding Notes — Charter Communications, Inc. Notes — 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2009.’’

2

Focus for 2005

Our principal financial goal is to maximize our return on invested capital. To do so, we will focus on increasing revenues, growing our customer base, improving customer retention and enhancing customer satisfaction by providing reliable, high-quality service offerings, superior customer service and attractive bundled offerings.

Specifically, in the near term, we are focusing on:

	•	generating improvements in the overall customer experience in such critical areas as service delivery, customer care, and new product offerings;
	•	developing more sophisticated customer management capabilities through investment in our customer care and marketing infrastructure, including targeted marketing capabilities;
	•	executing growth strategies for new services, including digital simulcast, VOD, telephony, and digital video recorder service (“DVR”);
	•	managing our operating costs by exercising discipline in capital and operational spending; and
	•	identifying opportunities to continue to improve our balance sheet and liquidity.

We have begun an internal operational improvement initiative aimed at helping us gain new customers and retain existing customers, which is focused on customer care, technical operations and sales. We intend to increase efforts to focus management attention on instilling a customer service oriented culture throughout the company and to give those areas of our operations increased priority of resources for staffing levels, training budgets and financial incentives for employee performance in those areas.

We believe that our high-speed data service will continue to provide a substantial portion of our revenue growth in the near future. We also plan to continue to expand our marketing of high-speed data service to the business community, which we believe has shown an increasing interest in high-speed data service and private network services. Additionally, we plan to continue to prepare additional markets for telephony launches in 2005.

We believe we offer our customers an excellent choice of services through a variety of bundled packages, particularly with respect to our digital video and high-speed data services, as well as telephony in certain markets. Our digital platform enables us to offer a significant number and variety of channels, and we offer customers the opportunity to choose among groups of channel offerings, including premium channels, and to combine selected programming with other services such as high-speed data, high definition television (in selected markets) and VOD (in selected markets).

3

Organizational Structure

The chart below sets forth our organizational structure and that of our principal direct and indirect subsidiaries. Equity ownership and voting percentages are actual percentages as of December 31, 2004 and do not give effect to any exercise, conversion or exchange of options, preferred stock, convertible notes or other convertible or exchangeable securities.

4

Charter Communications, Inc. Certain provisions of Charter’s certification of incorporation and Charter Holdco’s limited liability company agreement effectively require that Charter’s investment in Charter Holdco replicate, on a “mirror” basis, Charter’s outstanding equity and debt structure. As a result of these coordinating provisions, whenever Charter issues equity or debt, Charter transfers the proceeds from such issuance to Charter Holdco, and Charter Holdco issues a “mirror” security to Charter that replicates the characteristics of the security issued by Charter. Consequently, Charter’s principal assets are an approximate 47% common equity interest and a 100% voting interest in Charter Holdco, “mirror” notes that are payable by Charter Holdco to Charter that have the same principal amount and terms as Charter’s convertible senior notes and preferred units in Charter Holdco that mirror the terms and liquidation preferences of Charter’s outstanding preferred stock. Charter Holdco, through its subsidiaries, owns cable systems and certain strategic investments. As sole manager under applicable operating agreements, Charter controls the affairs of Charter Holdco and most of its subsidiaries. In addition, Charter also provides management services to Charter Holdco and its subsidiaries under a management services agreement.

5

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2004 with respect to the shares of common stock of Charter on an actual outstanding, “as converted” and “fully diluted” basis:

6

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC. Charter Holdco, a Delaware limited liability company formed on May 25, 1999, is the direct 100% parent of Charter Holdings. The common membership units of Charter Holdco are owned 47% by Charter, 18% by Vulcan Cable III Inc. and 35% by Charter Investment, Inc. All of the outstanding common membership units in Charter Holdco held by Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. are controlled by Mr. Allen and are exchangeable on a one-for-one basis at any time for shares of high vote Class B common stock of Charter, which are in turn convertible into Class A common stock of Charter. Charter controls 100% of the voting power of Charter Holdco and is its sole manager.

The following table sets forth the information as of December 31, 2004 with respect to the common units of Charter Holdco on an actual outstanding and “fully diluted” basis.

7

Charter Communications Holdings, LLC. Charter Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed on February 9, 1999, is a co-issuer of the publicly held Charter Holdings notes. These notes consist of $2.8 billion total principal amount at maturity of notes issued in March 1999, $1.4 billion total principal amount at maturity of notes issued in January 2000, $2.0 billion total principal amount at maturity of notes issued in January 2001, $2.3 billion total principal amount at maturity of notes issued in May 2001 (includes additional issuance in January 2002) and $330 million total principal amount at maturity of notes issued in January 2002. Charter Holdings owns 100% of Charter Communications Holdings Capital, the co-issuer of these notes. Charter Holdings also owns CCH II, CCO Holdings and the subsidiaries that conduct all of our cable operations, including Charter Operating.

CCH II, LLC. CCH II, a Delaware limited liability company formed on March 20, 2003, is a co-issuer of $1.6 billion principal amount of notes issued in September 2003. CCH II owns 100% of CCH II Capital Corp., the co-issuer of these notes. CCH II also owns CCO Holdings and the subsidiaries that conduct all of our cable operations, including Charter Operating.

CCO Holdings, LLC. CCO Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed on June 12, 2003, is a co-issuer of $500 million principal amount of notes issued in November 2003 and $550 million principal amount of notes issued in December 2004. CCO Holdings owns 100% of CCO Holdings Capital Corp., the co-issuer of these notes. CCO Holdings also owns the subsidiaries that conduct all of our cable operations, including Charter Operating.

Charter Operating. Charter Operating owns the subsidiaries that own or operate all of our cable systems, subject to a minority interest held by Mr. Allen as described below. There are four groups of these operating subsidiaries, identified as follows: the Charter Operating subsidiaries, the CC V/CC VIII companies, the CC VI companies, and the CC VII companies. The public notes issuers, Renaissance Media Group and CC V Holdings, are within two of these groups and prior to April 2004, each group of operating subsidiaries had a separate credit facility. The credit facilities for the CC V/CC VIII companies, the CC VI companies and the CC VII companies were all refinanced in April 2004 in connection with the amendment and restatement of the CCO credit facilities. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Preferred Equity in CC VIII, LLC. Upon the closing of the acquisition of certain cable systems by our subsidiary, CC VIII, LLC, in 2000, some of the former owners received a portion of their purchase price in the form of preferred membership units in CC VIII, LLC, which were exchangeable for shares of Charter Class A common stock. In April 2002, these former owners exercised their right to put their preferred CC VIII membership interests to Mr. Allen and this transaction closed on June 6, 2003. An issue has arisen regarding the ultimate ownership of these CC VIII membership units following the consummation of this put right. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Transactions Arising out of Our Organizational Structure and Mr. Allen’s Investment in Charter Communications, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries — Equity Put Rights — CC VIII.”

Products and Services

We offer our customers traditional cable video programming (analog and digital video) as well as high-speed data services and in some areas advanced broadband services such as high definition television, VOD and interactive television. We sell our video programming and high-speed data services on a subscription basis, with prices and related charges, that vary primarily based on the types of service selected, whether the services are sold as a “bundle” versus on an “à la carte” basis, and the equipment necessary to receive the services, with some variation in prices depending on geographic location. In addition, we offer telephony service to a limited number of customers.

8

The following table summarizes our customer statistics for analog and digital video, residential high-speed data and residential telephony as of December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003.

Pro forma for the sale of systems to Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC in March and April 2004 as if these sales had occurred as of December 31, 2003, analog video customers, digital video customers and residential high-speed data customers would have been 6,200,500, 2,588,600 and 1,527,800, respectively, as of December 31, 2003.

9

Video Services

Our video service offerings include the following:

	•	Basic Analog Video. All of our video customers receive a package of basic programming which generally consists of local broadcast television, local community programming, including governmental and public access, and limited satellite-delivered or non-broadcast channels, such as weather, shopping and religious services. Our basic channel line-up generally has between 15 and 30 channels.
	•	Expanded Basic Video. This expanded programming level includes a package of satellite-delivered or non-broadcast channels and generally has between 30 and 50 channels in addition to the basic channel line-up.
	•	Premium Channels. These channels provide commercial-free movies, sports and other special event entertainment programming. Although we offer subscriptions to premium channels on an individual basis, we offer an increasing number of premium channel packages and we offer premium channels with our advanced services.
	•	Pay-Per-View. These channels allow customers to pay on a per event basis to view a single showing of a recently released movie, a one-time special sporting event, music concert or similar event on a commercial-free basis.
	•	Digital Video. We offer digital video service to our customers in several different service combination packages. All of our digital packages include a digital set-top terminal, an interactive electronic programming guide, an expanded menu of pay-per-view channels and the option to also receive digital packages which range from 4 to 30 additional video channels. We also offer our customers certain digital packages with one or more premium channels that give customers access to several different versions of the same premium channel. Some digital tier packages focus on the interests of a particular customer demographic and emphasize, for example, sports, movies, family or ethnic programming. In addition to video programming, digital video service enables customers to receive our advanced services such as VOD and high definition television. Other digital packages bundle digital television with our advanced services, such as high-speed data services.
	•	Video On Demand and Subscription Video on Demand. We offer VOD service, which allows customers to access hundreds of movies and other programming at any time with digital picture quality. In some systems we also offer subscription VOD (SVOD) for a monthly fee or included in a digital tier premium channel subscription.
	•	High Definition Television. High definition television offers our digital customers video programming at a higher resolution than the standard analog or digital video image.
	•	Digital Video Recorder. DVR service enables customers to digitally record programming and to pause and rewind live programming.

High-Speed Data Services

We offer high-speed data services to our residential and commercial customers primarily via cable modems attached to personal computers. We generally offer our high-speed data service as Charter High-Speed Internet^TM. We also offer traditional dial-up Internet access in a very limited number of our markets.

We ended 2004 with 18% penetration of high-speed data homes passed, up from the 15% penetration of high-speed data homes passed at year-end 2003. This gave us an annual percentage increase in high-speed data customers of 20% and an increase in high-speed data revenues of 33% in the year ended December 31, 2004.

Telephony Services

We continue to deploy voice communications services using VOIP to transmit digital voice signals over our systems. At December 31, 2004, telephone service was available to approximately 900,000 homes, and we were marketing to approximately two-thirds of those homes. We will continue to prepare additional markets for VOIP launches in 2005.

10

Commercial Services

We offer integrated network solutions to commercial and institutional customers. These solutions include high-speed data and video services. In addition, we offer high-speed data services to small businesses.

Sale of Advertising

We receive revenues from the sale of local advertising on satellite-delivered networks such as MTV®, CNN® and ESPN®. In any particular market, we generally insert local advertising on up to 39 channels. Our system rebuilds have increased the number of available channels on which we are able to insert local advertising. We also provide cross-channel advertising to some programmers.

From time to time, certain of our vendors, including equipment vendors, have purchased advertising from us. For the years ending December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, we had advertising revenues from vendors of approximately $16 million, $15 million, and $79 million, respectively. These revenues resulted from purchases at market rates pursuant to binding agreements.

Pricing of Our Products and Services

Our revenues are derived principally from the monthly fees our customers pay for the services we offer. A one-time installation fee, which is sometimes waived or discounted during certain promotional periods, is charged to new customers. The prices we charge vary based on the level of service the customer chooses and the geographic market. Most of our pricing is reviewed and adjusted on an annual basis.

In accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s rules, the prices we charge for cable-related equipment, such as set-top terminals and remote control devices, and for installation services are based on actual costs plus a permitted rate of return.

Although our cable service offerings vary across the markets we serve because of various factors including competition and regulatory factors, our services, when offered on a stand-alone basis, are typically offered at monthly price ranges, excluding franchise fees and other taxes, as follows:

In addition, from time to time we offer free service or reduced-price service during promotional periods in order to attract new customers. There is no assurance that these customers will remain as customers when the period of free service expires.

Our Network Technology

The following table sets forth the technological capacity of our systems as of December 31, 2004 based on a percentage of homes passed:

11

As a result of the upgrade of our systems over the past several years, approximately 92% of our homes passed are served by systems that have bandwidth of 550 megahertz or greater. This bandwidth capacity enables us to offer digital television, high-speed data services and other advanced services. It also enables us to offer up to 82 analog channels, and even more channels when our bandwidth is used for digital signal transmissions. Our increased bandwidth also permits two-way communication for Internet access, interactive services, and potentially, telephony services.

As part of our systems upgrade and partly as a result of system sales, we reduced the number of headends that serve our customers from 1,138 at January 1, 2001 to 744 at December 31, 2004. Because headends are the control centers of a cable system, where incoming signals are amplified, converted, processed and combined for transmission to the customer, reducing the number of headends reduces related equipment, service personnel and maintenance expenditures. We believe that the headend consolidation, together with our other upgrades, allows us to provide enhanced picture quality and greater system reliability. As a result of the upgrade, approximately 84% of our customers were served by headends serving at least 10,000 customers as of December 31, 2004.

As of December 31, 2004, our cable systems consisted of approximately 222,100 strand miles, including approximately 53,600 strand miles of fiber optic cable, passing approximately 12.1 million households and served approximately 6.2 million customers.

We adopted the hybrid fiber coaxial cable (“HFC”) architecture as the standard for our systems upgrades. HFC architecture combines the use of fiber optic cable with coaxial cable. Fiber optic cable is a communication medium that uses glass fibers to transmit signals over long distances with minimum signal loss or distortion. Fiber optic cable has excellent broadband frequency characteristics, noise immunity and physical durability and can carry hundreds of video, data and voice channels over extended distances. Coaxial cable is less expensive and requires a more extensive signal amplification in order to obtain the desired transmission levels for delivering channels. In most systems, we deliver our signals via fiber optic cable from the headend to a group of nodes, and use coaxial cable to deliver the signal from individual nodes to the homes passed served by that node. Our system design enables a maximum of 500 homes passed to be served by a single node. Currently, our average node serves approximately 385 homes passed. Our system design provides for six strands of fiber to each node, with two strands activated and four strands reserved for spares and future services. We believe that this hybrid network design provides high capacity and superior signal quality. The design also provides reserve capacity for the addition of future services.

The primary advantages of HFC architecture over traditional coaxial-only cable networks include:

	•	increased bandwidth capacity, for more channels and other services;
	•	dedicated bandwidth for two-way services, which avoids reverse signal interference problems that can occur with two-way communication capability; and
	•	improved picture quality and service reliability.

We currently maintain a national network operations center to monitor our data networks and to further our strategy of providing high quality service. Centralized monitoring is increasingly important as we increase the number of high-speed data customers utilizing two-way high-speed data service. Our local dispatch centers focus primarily on monitoring the HFC plant.

Management of Our Systems

Many of the functions associated with our financial management are centralized, including accounting, billing, finance and acquisitions, payroll, accounts payable and benefit administration, information system design and support, internal audit, purchasing, marketing, programming contract administration and Internet service, network and circuits administration. We operate with four divisions. Each division is supported by operational, financial, marketing and engineering functions.

Customer Care

We have 36 customer service locations, including 14 divisional contact centers that serve approximately 97% of our customers. Our customer care centers are managed divisionally by a Vice President of Customer Care and are

12

supported by a corporate care team, which oversees and supports deployment and execution of care strategies and initiatives on a company-wide basis. This reflects a substantial consolidation of our customer care function from over 300 service centers in 2001. We believe that this consolidation will allow us to improve the consistency of our service delivery and customer satisfaction by reducing or eliminating the logistical challenges and poor economies of scale inherent in maintaining and supervising a larger number of separately managed service centers.

Specifically, through this consolidation, we are now able to service our customers 24 hours a day, seven days a week and utilize technologically advanced equipment that we believe enhances interactions with our customers through more intelligent call routing, data management, and forecasting and scheduling capabilities. We believe this consolidation also allows us to more effectively provide our customer care specialists with ongoing training intended to improve complaint resolution, equipment troubleshooting, sales of new and additional services, and customer retention.

We believe that, despite our consolidation, we have not yet sufficiently improved in the area of customer care, and that this lack of improvement has in part led to a continued net loss of customers. Accordingly, we have begun an internal operational improvement initiative aimed at helping us gain new customers and retain existing customers, which is focused on customer care, among other areas. We intend to increase our efforts to focus management attention on instilling a customer service oriented culture throughout the company and to give those areas of our operations increased priority of resources for staffing levels, training budgets and financial incentives for employee performance in those areas.

In a further effort to better serve our customers, we have also entered into outsource partnership agreements with two key outsource providers. We believe the establishment of these relationships expands our ability to achieve our service objectives and increases our ability to support marketing activities by providing additional capacity available to support customer inquiries.

We also utilize our website to enhance customer care by enabling customers to view and pay their bills online, obtain useful information and perform various equipment troubleshooting procedures.

Sales and Marketing

In the third quarter of 2004, Charter shifted primary responsibility for implementing sales and marketing strategies to the divisional and system level, with a single corporate team to ensure compliance with guidelines established by the corporate marketing department designed to promote national branding consistency. Our marketing infrastructure is intended to promote interaction, information flow and sharing of best practices between our corporate office and our field offices, which make strategic decisions as to when and how marketing programs will be implemented.

Due to our focus in 2003 on certain other operational matters and due to certain financial constraints, we reduced spending in 2003 on marketing our products and services. Marketing expenditures increased 14% for the year ended December 31, 2004 to $122 million. We expect to increase our spending on marketing in 2005.

We monitor government regulation, customer perception, competition, pricing and product preferences, among other factors, to increase our responsiveness to our customers. Our coordinated marketing strategies include door-to-door solicitation, telemarketing, media advertising, e-marketing, direct mail solicitation and retail locations. In 2004, we increased our focus on marketing and selling our services through consumer electronics retailers and other retailers that sell televisions or cable modems.

In January 2004, we introduced the first national branding campaign in Charter’s history. The “Get Hooked” branding initiative was a key focal point of our national marketing campaigns in 2004 with the aim of promoting deeper market penetration and increased revenue per customer. In 2004, our corporate team produced eight national “Get Hooked” marketing campaigns designed to:

	•	Promote awareness and loyalty among existing customers and attract new customers;
	•	Announce the availability of our advanced services as we roll them out in our systems;
	•	Promote our advanced services (such as DVR, high definition television, telephony, VOD and SVOD) with the goal that our customers will view their cable connection as one-stop shopping for video, voice, high-speed data and interactive services; and
	•	Promote our bundling of digital video and high-speed data services and pricing strategies.

Programming

General

We believe that offering a wide variety of programming is an important factor that influences a customer’s decision to subscribe to and retain our cable services. We rely on market research, customer demographics and local programming preferences to determine channel offerings in each of our markets. We obtain basic and premium

13

programming from a number of suppliers, usually pursuant to a written contract. Our programming contracts generally continue for a fixed period of time, usually from three to ten years, and are subject to negotiated renewal. Some program suppliers offer financial incentives to support the launch of a channel and ongoing marketing support or launch fees. We also negotiate volume discount pricing structures. Programming costs are usually payable each month based on calculations performed by us and are subject to adjustment based on the results of periodic audits by the programmers.

Costs

Programming tends to be made available to us for a license fee, which is generally paid based on the number of customers to whom we make such programming available. Such license fees may include “volume” discounts available for higher numbers of customers, as well as discounts for channel placement or service penetration. Some channels are available without cost to us for a limited period of time, after which we pay for the programming. For home shopping channels, we receive a percentage of the amount our customers spend on home shopping purchases.

Our cable programming costs have increased, in every year we have operated, in excess of customary inflationary and cost-of-living type increases. We expect them to continue to increase due to a variety of factors, including: annual increases imposed by programmers and additional programming being provided to customers as a result of system rebuilds and bandwidth reallocation, both of which increase channel capacity.

In particular, sports programming costs have increased significantly over the past several years. In addition, contracts to purchase sports programming sometimes contain built-in cost increases for programming added during the term of the contract.

Historically, we have absorbed increased programming costs in large part through increased prices to our customers. However, with the impact of competition and other marketplace factors, there is no assurance that we will be able to continue to do so. In order to maintain or mitigate reductions of margins despite increasing programming costs, we plan to continue to migrate certain program services from our analog level of service to our digital tiers. As we migrate our programming to our digital tier packages, certain programming that was previously available to all of our customers via an analog signal, may be part of an elective digital tier package. As a result, the customer base upon which we pay programming fees will proportionately decrease, and the overall expense for providing that service would likewise decrease. Reductions in the size of certain programming customer bases may result in the loss of specific volume discount benefits.

As measured by programming costs, and excluding premium services (substantially all of which were renegotiated and renewed in 2003), as of December 31, 2004 approximately 10% of our current programming contracts were expired, and approximately another 34% are scheduled to expire by the end of 2005. We plan to seek to renegotiate the terms of our agreements with certain programmers as these agreements come due for renewal. There can be no assurance that these agreements will be renewed on favorable or comparable terms. To the extent that we are unable to reach agreement with certain programmers on terms that we believe are reasonable, we may be forced to remove such programming channels from our line-up, which could result in a further loss of customers. In addition, our inability to fully pass these programming cost increases on to our customers would have an adverse impact on our cash flow and operating margins.

Franchises

As of December 31, 2004, our systems operated pursuant to a total of approximately 4,200 franchises, permits and similar authorizations issued by local and state governmental authorities. Each franchise is awarded by a governmental authority and such governmental authority often must approve a transfer to another party. Most franchises are subject to termination proceedings in the event of a material breach. In addition, most franchises require us to pay the granting authority a franchise fee of up to 5.0% of revenues as defined in the various agreements, which is the maximum amount that may be charged under the applicable federal law. We are entitled to and generally do pass this fee through to the customer.

Prior to the scheduled expiration of most franchises, we initiate renewal proceedings with the granting authorities. This process usually takes three years but can take a longer period of time. The Communications Act provides for an orderly franchise renewal process in which granting authorities may not unreasonably withhold renewals. In

14

connection with the franchise renewal process, many governmental authorities require the cable operator to make certain commitments. Historically we have been able to renew our franchises without incurring significant costs, although any particular franchise may not be renewed on commercially favorable terms or otherwise. Our failure to obtain renewals of our franchises, especially those in the major metropolitan areas where we have the most customers, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our liquidity, including our ability to comply with our debt covenants. Approximately 11% of our franchises, covering approximately 10% of our analog video customers were expired at December 31, 2004. Approximately 8% of additional franchises, covering approximately 9% of additional analog video customers will expire on or before December 31, 2005, if not renewed prior to expiration. We expect to renew substantially all of these franchises.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Telecom Act”), state and local authorities are prohibited from limiting, restricting or conditioning the provision of telecommunications services. They may, however, impose “competitively neutral” requirements and manage the public rights-of-way. Granting authorities may not require a cable operator to provide telecommunications services or facilities, other than institutional networks, as a condition of an initial franchise grant, a franchise renewal, or a franchise transfer. The 1996 Telecom Act also limits franchise fees to an operator’s cable-related revenues and clarifies that they do not apply to revenues that a cable operator derives from providing new telecommunications services. In a March 2002 decision, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) held that revenue derived from the provision of cable modem service should not be added to franchise fee payments already limited by federal law to 5% of traditional cable service revenue. The same decision tentatively limited local franchising authority regulation of cable modem service. On October 6, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part the FCC’s March 2002 decision and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the portion of the FCC’s March 2002 decision holding that cable modem service is not a “cable service.” Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision should not subject cable operators to additional cable franchise fee requirements for the provision of cable modem service, it could possibly result in other telecommunications regulation.

Competition

We face competition in the areas of price, service offerings, and service reliability. We compete with other providers of television signals and other sources of home entertainment. In addition, as we continue to expand into additional services such as high-speed Internet access and telephony, we face competition from other providers of each type of service. We operate in a very competitive business environment, which can adversely affect our business and operations.

In terms of competition for customers, we view ourselves as a member of the broadband communications industry, which encompasses multi-channel video for television and related broadband services, such as high-speed data and other interactive video services. In the broadband industry, our principal competitor for video services throughout our territory is direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”), and in markets where it is available, our principal competitor for data services is digital subscriber line (“DSL”). We do not consider other cable operators to be significant one-on-one competitors in the market overall, as traditional overbuilds are infrequent and spotty geographically (although in a particular market, a cable operator overbuilder would likely be a significant competitor at the local level). As of December 31, 2004, we are aware of traditional overbuild situations in service areas covering approximately 5% of our total homes passed and potential overbuilds in areas servicing approximately 2% of our total homes passed.

Although cable operators tend not to be direct competitors for customers, their relative size may affect the competitive landscape in terms of how a cable company competes against non-cable competitors in the market place as well as in relationships with vendors who deal with cable operators. For example, a larger cable operator might have better access to and pricing for the multiple types of services cable companies offer. Also, a larger entity might have different access to financial resources and acquisition opportunities.

Our key competitors include:

DBS

Direct broadcast satellite is a significant competitor to cable systems. The DBS industry has grown rapidly over the last several years, far exceeding the growth rate of the cable television industry, and now serves more than 24 million subscribers nationwide. DBS service allows the subscriber to receive video services directly via satellite using a relatively small dish antenna. Consistent with increasing consolidation in the communications industry, News Corp., one of the world’s largest media companies, acquired a controlling interest in DIRECTV, Inc. (“DirecTV”) in 2003, the largest domestic DBS company. This business combination could further strengthen

15

DirecTV’s competitive posture, particularly through favorable programming arrangements with various News Corp. affiliates and subsidiaries, such as the Fox television network. Additionally, EchoStar and DirecTV both have entered into joint marketing agreements with major telecommunications companies to offer bundled packages combining phone service, DSL and DBS services.

Video compression technology and high powered satellites allow DBS providers to offer more than 200 digital channels from a single transponder satellite, thereby surpassing the typical analog cable system. In 2003, major DBS competitors offered a greater variety of channel packages, and were especially competitive at the lower end pricing, such as a monthly price of approximately $30 for 75 channels compared to approximately $40 for the closest comparable package in most of our markets. In addition, while we continue to believe that the initial investment by a DBS customer exceeds that of a cable customer, the initial equipment cost for DBS has decreased substantially, as the DBS providers have aggressively marketed offers to new customers of incentives for discounted or free equipment, installation and multiple units. DBS providers are able to offer service nationwide and are able to establish a national image and branding with standardized offerings, which together with their ability to avoid franchise fees of up to 5% of revenues and property tax, leads to greater efficiencies and lower costs in the lower tiers of service. However, we believe that most consumers continue to prefer our stronger local presence in our markets. We believe that cable-delivered VOD and SVOD service are superior to DBS service because cable headends can store thousands of titles which customers can access and control independently, whereas DBS technology can only make available a much smaller number of titles with DVR-like customer control. We also believe that our higher tier products, particularly our bundled premium packages, are price-competitive with DBS packages and that many consumers prefer our ability to economically bundle video packages with data packages. Further, cable providers have the potential in some areas to provide a more complete “whole house” communications package when combining video, high-speed data and voice. We believe that this, combined with the introduction of more new products that DBS cannot offer (local high definition television and local interactive television) differentiates us from DBS competitors and could enable us to win back some of our former customers who migrated to satellite. Recent joint marketing arrangements between DBS providers and telecommunications carriers allow similar bundling of services in certain areas.

DBS companies historically were prohibited from retransmitting popular local broadcast programming. However, a change to the copyright laws in 1999, which was continued in 2004, eliminated this legal impediment. As a result, DBS companies now may retransmit such programming, once they have secured retransmission consent from the popular broadcast stations they wish to carry, and honor mandatory carriage obligations of less popular broadcast stations in the same television markets. In response to the legislation, DirecTV and EchoStar have been carrying the major network stations in many of the nation’s television markets. DBS, however, is limited in the local programming it can provide because of the current capacity limitations of satellite technology. DBS companies do not offer local broadcast programming in every U.S. market, although the number of markets covered is increasing.

DBS providers have made attempts at widespread deployment of high-speed Internet access services via satellite but those services have been technically constrained and of limited appeal. However, DBS providers have entered into joint marketing arrangements with telecommunications carriers allowing them to offer terrestrial DSL services in many markets.

DSL and other Broadband Services

Digital subscriber line service allows Internet access to subscribers at data transmission speeds greater than those available over conventional telephone lines. DSL service therefore is competitive with high-speed Internet access over cable systems. Most telephone companies which already have plant, an existing customer base, and other operational functions in place (such as, billing, service personnel, etc.) offer DSL service. DSL actively markets its service and many providers have offered promotional pricing with a one-year service agreement. The FCC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding that could materially reduce existing regulation of DSL service, essentially freeing such service from traditional telecommunications regulation. It is also possible that federal legislation could reduce regulation of Internet services offered by incumbent telephone companies. Legislative action and the FCC’s decisions and policies in this area are subject to change. We expect DSL to remain a significant competitor to our data services. In addition, the further deployment of fiber by telephone companies into their networks will enable them to provide higher bandwidth Internet service than provided over traditional DSL lines.

DSL and other forms of high-speed Internet access provide competition to our high-speed data service. For example, as discussed above, satellite-based delivery options are in development. In addition, local wireless Internet services have recently begun to operate in many markets using available unlicensed radio spectrum. This service option, popularly known as “wi-fi”, offers another alternative to cable-based Internet access.

16

High-speed Internet access facilitates the streaming of video into homes and businesses. As the quality and availability of video streaming over the Internet improves, video streaming likely will compete with the traditional delivery of video programming services over cable systems. It is possible that programming suppliers will consider bypassing cable operators and market their services directly to the consumer through video streaming over the Internet.

We believe that pricing for residential and commercial data services on our system is generally comparable to that for similar DSL services and that some residential customers prefer our ability to bundle data services with video services. However, DSL providers may currently be in a better position to offer data services to businesses since their networks tend to be more complete in commercial areas. They also have the ability to bundle telephony with data services for a higher percentage of their customers, and that ability is appealing to many consumers. Joint marketing arrangements between DSL providers and DBS providers may allow some additional bundling of services. Moreover, major telephone companies, such as SBC and Verizon, are now deploying fiber deep into their networks that will enable them to offer high bandwidth video services over their networks, in addition to established voice and Internet services.

Broadcast Television

Cable television has long competed with broadcast television, which consists of television signals that the viewer is able to receive without charge using an “off-air” antenna. The extent of such competition is dependent upon the quality and quantity of broadcast signals available through “off-air” reception compared to the services provided by the local cable system. Traditionally, cable television has provided a higher picture quality and more channel offerings than broadcast television. However, the recent licensing of digital spectrum by the FCC will provide traditional broadcasters with the ability to deliver high definition television pictures and multiple digital-quality program streams, as well as advanced digital services such as subscription video and data transmission.

Traditional Overbuilds

Cable systems are operated under non-exclusive franchises granted by local authorities. More than one cable system may legally be built in the same area. It is possible that a franchising authority might grant a second franchise to another cable operator and that such a franchise might contain terms and conditions more favorable than those afforded us. In addition, entities willing to establish an open video system, under which they offer unaffiliated programmers non-discriminatory access to a portion of the system’s cable system, may be able to avoid local franchising requirements. Well financed businesses from outside the cable industry, such as public utilities that already possess fiber optic and other transmission lines in the areas they serve, may over time become competitors. There are a number of cities that have constructed their own cable systems, in a manner similar to city-provided utility services. There also has been interest in traditional overbuilds by private companies. Constructing a competing cable system is a capital intensive process which involves a high degree of risk. We believe that in order to be successful, a competitor’s overbuild would need to be able to serve the homes and businesses in the overbuilt area on a more cost-effective basis than we can. Any such overbuild operation would require either significant access to capital or access to facilities already in place that are capable of delivering cable television programming.

As of December 31, 2004, we are aware of overbuild situations impacting approximately 5% of our total homes passed and potential overbuild situations in areas servicing approximately 2% of our total homes passed. Additional overbuild situations may occur in other systems. In response to such overbuilds, these systems have been designated priorities for the upgrade of cable plant and the launch of new and enhanced services. As of December 31, 2004, we have upgraded many of these systems to at least 750 megahertz two-way HFC architecture.

Telephone Companies and Utilities

The competitive environment has been significantly affected by technological developments and regulatory changes enacted under the 1996 Telecom Act, which is designed to enhance competition in the cable television and local telephone markets. Federal cross-ownership restrictions historically limited entry by local telephone companies into the cable business. The 1996 Telecom Act modified this cross-ownership restriction, making it possible for local exchange carriers, who have considerable resources, to provide a wide variety of video services competitive with services offered by cable systems.

Telephone companies can lawfully enter the cable television business, and although activity in this area historically has been quite limited, recent announcements by telephone companies indicate a growing interest in offering a video

17

product. Local exchange carriers do already provide facilities for the transmission and distribution of voice and data services, including Internet services, in competition with our existing or potential interactive services ventures and businesses. In addition, major telephone companies, such as SBC and Verizon, are now deploying fiber into their networks that will enable them to offer video services over their networks, in addition to established voice and Internet services. Some telephone companies have begun more extensive deployment of fiber in their networks that will enable them to begin providing video services, as well as telephony and Internet access service. At least one major telephone company, SBC, plans to provide Internet protocol video over its upgraded network. SBC contends that its use of this technology should allow it to provide video service without a cable franchise as required under Title VI of the Communications Act. Other telephone companies deploying fiber more extensively are attempting through various means to weaken or streamline the franchising requirements applicable to them. If telephone companies are successful in avoiding or weakening the franchise and other regulatory requirements applicable to Charter, their competitive posture would be enhanced. We cannot predict the likelihood of success of the broadband services offered by our competitors or the impact on us of such competitive ventures. The large scale entry of major telephone companies as direct competitors in the video marketplace could adversely affect the profitability and valuation of established cable systems.

As we expand our offerings to include Internet access and other telecommunications services, we will be subject to competition from other telecommunications providers. The telecommunications industry is highly competitive and includes competitors with greater financial and personnel resources, who have brand name recognition and long-standing relationships with regulatory authorities and customers. Moreover, mergers, joint ventures and alliances among franchise, wireless or private cable operators, local exchange carriers and others may result in providers capable of offering cable television, Internet, and telecommunications services in direct competition with us. For example, major local exchange carriers have entered into arrangements with EchoStar and DirecTV in which they will market packages combining phone service, DSL and DBS services.

Additionally, we are subject to competition from utilities which possess fiber optic transmission lines capable of transmitting signals with minimal signal distortion. Utilities are also developing broadband over power line technology, which will allow the provision of Internet and other broadband services to homes and offices.

Private Cable

Additional competition is posed by satellite master antenna television systems, or SMATV systems, serving multiple dwelling units, or MDUs, such as condominiums, apartment complexes, and private residential communities. These private cable systems may enter into exclusive agreements with such MDUs, which may preclude operators of franchise systems from serving residents of such private complexes. Private cable systems can offer both improved reception of local television stations and many of the same satellite-delivered program services that are offered by cable systems. SMATV systems currently benefit from operating advantages not available to franchised cable systems, including fewer regulatory burdens and no requirement to service low density or economically depressed communities. Exemption from regulation may provide a competitive advantage to certain of our current and potential competitors.

Wireless Distribution

Cable systems also compete with wireless program distribution services such as multi-channel multipoint distribution systems or “wireless cable,” known as MMDS, which uses low-power microwave frequencies to transmit television programming over-the-air to paying customers. Wireless distribution services generally provide many of the programming services provided by cable systems, and digital compression technology increases significantly the channel capacity of their systems. Both analog and digital MMDS services, however, require unobstructed “line of sight” transmission paths and MMDS ventures have been quite limited to date.

The FCC has completed its auction of Multichannel Video Distribution & Data Service (“MVDDS”) licenses. MVDDS is a new terrestrial video and data fixed wireless service that the FCC hopes will spur competition in the cable and DBS industries.

Regulation and Legislation

The following summary addresses the key regulatory and legislative developments affecting the cable industry. Cable system operations are extensively regulated by the FCC, some state governments and most local governments. A failure to comply with these regulations could subject us to substantial penalties. Our business can be dramatically impacted by changes to the existing regulatory framework, whether triggered by legislative,

18

administrative, or judicial rulings. Congress and the FCC have expressed a particular interest in increasing competition in the communications field generally and in the cable television field specifically. The 1996 Telecom Act altered the regulatory structure governing the nation’s communications providers. It removed barriers to competition in both the cable television market and the local telephone market. At the same time, the FCC has pursued spectrum licensing options designed to increase competition to the cable industry by wireless multichannel video programming distributors. We could be materially disadvantaged in the future if we are subject to new regulations that do not equally impact our key competitors.

Congress and the FCC have frequently revisited the subject of communications regulation, and they are likely to do so in the future. In addition, franchise agreements with local governments must be periodically renewed, and new operating terms may be imposed. Future legislative, regulatory, or judicial changes could adversely affect our operations. We can provide no assurance that the already extensive regulation of our business will not be expanded in the future.

Cable Rate Regulation

The cable industry has operated under a federal rate regulation regime for more than a decade. The regulations currently restrict the prices that cable systems charge for basic service and associated equipment. All other cable offerings are now universally exempt from rate regulation. Although rate regulation operates pursuant to a federal formula, local governments, commonly referred to as local franchising authorities, are primarily responsible for administering this regulation. The majority of our local franchising authorities have never certified to regulate basic cable rates, but they retain the right to do so (and order rate reductions and refunds), except in those specific communities facing “effective competition.” Federal law defines effective competition as existing in a variety of circumstances that historically were rarely satisfied, but are increasingly likely to be satisfied with the recent increase in DBS competition.

There have been frequent calls to impose expanded rate regulation on the cable industry. Confronted with rapidly increasing cable programming costs, it is possible that Congress may adopt new constraints on the retail pricing or packaging of cable programming. Such constraints could adversely affect our operations.

The federal rate regulations also require cable operators to maintain a “geographically uniform” rate within each community, except in those communities facing effective competition. As we attempt to respond to a changing marketplace with competitive pricing practices, we may face legal restraints and challenges that impede our ability to compete.

Must Carry/Retransmission Consent

Federal law currently includes “must carry” regulations, which require cable systems to carry certain local broadcast television stations that the cable operator would not select voluntarily. Alternatively, popular commercial television stations can prohibit cable carriage unless the cable operator first negotiates for “retransmission consent,” which may be conditioned on significant payments or other concessions. Either option has a potentially adverse effect on our business. The burden associated with must carry could increase significantly if cable systems were required to simultaneously carry both the analog and digital signals of each television station (dual carriage), as the broadcast industry transitions from an analog to a digital format.

The burden could also increase significantly if cable systems become required to carry multiple program streams included within a single digital broadcast transmission (multicast carriage). Additional government-mandated broadcast carriage obligations could disrupt existing programming commitments, interfere with our preferred use of limited channel capacity and limit our ability to offer services that would maximize customer appeal and revenue potential. Although the FCC issued a decision on February 10, 2005, confirming an earlier ruling against mandating either dual carriage or multicast carriage, that decision could be appealed or Congress could legislate additional carriage obligations.

Access Channels

Local franchise agreements often require cable operators to set aside certain channels for public, educational and governmental access programming. Federal law also requires cable systems to designate a portion of their channel capacity for commercial leased access by unaffiliated third parties. Increased activity in this area could further burden the channel capacity of our cable systems.

19

Access to Programming

The FCC recently extended a regulation prohibiting video programmers affiliated with cable companies from favoring cable operators over new competitors and requiring such programmers to sell their satellite-delivered programming to other multichannel video distributors. This provision limits the ability of vertically integrated cable programmers to offer exclusive programming arrangements to cable companies. DBS providers traditionally had no similar restriction on exclusive programming, but the FCC recently imposed that restriction as part of its approval of the DirecTV-News Corp. merger.

The FCC has also adopted regulations to avoid unreasonable conduct in retransmission consent negotiations between broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors, including cable and DBS. It imposed special conditions on the DirectTV-News Corp. merger, including a requirement that Fox affiliated broadcast stations enter into commercial arbitration for disputes over retransmission consent. Given the heightened competition and media consolidation that Charter faces, it is possible that we will find it increasingly difficult to gain access to popular programming at favorable terms. Such difficulty could adversely impact our business.

Ownership Restrictions

Federal regulation of the communications field traditionally included a host of ownership restrictions, which limited the size of certain media entities and restricted their ability to enter into competing enterprises. Through a series of legislative, regulatory, and judicial actions, most of these restrictions recently were eliminated or substantially relaxed. For example, historic restrictions on local exchange carriers offering cable service within their telephone service area, as well as those prohibiting broadcast stations from owning cable systems within their broadcast service area, no longer exist. Changes in this regulatory area, including some still subject to judicial review, could alter the business landscape in which we operate, as formidable new competitors (including electric utilities, local exchange carriers, and broadcast/media companies) may increasingly choose to offer cable services.

The FCC previously adopted regulations precluding any cable operator from serving more than 30% of all domestic multichannel video subscribers and from devoting more than 40% of the activated channel capacity of any cable system to the carriage of affiliated national video programming services. These cable ownership restrictions were invalidated by the courts, and the FCC is now considering adoption of replacement regulations.

Internet Service

Over the past several years, proposals have been advanced at the FCC and Congress that would require cable operators offering Internet service to provide non-discriminatory access to unaffiliated Internet service providers. Several local franchising authorities actually adopted mandatory “open access” requirements, but various federal courts rejected each of these actions, relying on different legal theories. It remains unclear today precisely what regulatory regime ultimately will be applied to the cable industry’s high-speed Internet service. The FCC has ruled that cable modem service is an interstate “information service,” rather than a “cable” or “telecommunications service.” This classification left cable modem service exempt from the burdens associated with traditional cable and telecommunications regulation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit however, vacated in part the FCC’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that cable modem service is not “cable service,” but is part “telecommunications service” and part “information service.” That decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. The Ninth Circuit decision, if not overturned, could potentially result in adverse regulatory treatment, including the imposition of “open access” requirements on the cable industry’s Internet access service.

Although the FCC previously suggested that regulatory forbearance of cable modem service would be appropriate, regardless of the technical classification ultimately assigned to it, a number of technology companies continue to press the FCC to subject cable modem service to certain “nondiscrimination principles.” The final regulatory status of cable modem service remains uncertain. Its outcome could materially affect our business. It could also affect whether local franchising authorities can collect franchise fees on cable modem service and whether cable systems will have any payment obligations to the federal government’s universal service fund and be subject to other common carrier regulations.

As the Internet has matured, it has become the subject of increasing regulatory interest. There is now a host of federal laws affecting Internet service, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which affords copyright owners certain rights against us that could adversely affect our relationship with any customer accused of violating

20

copyright laws. Recently enacted Anti-Spam legislation also imposes new obligations on our operations. The adoption of new Internet regulations could adversely affect our business.

Phone Service

The 1996 Telecom Act created a more favorable regulatory environment for us to provide telecommunications services. In particular, it limited the regulatory role of local franchising authorities and established requirements ensuring that we could interconnect with other telephone companies to provide a viable service. Many implementation details remain unresolved, and there are substantial regulatory changes being considered that could impact, in both positive and negative ways, our primary telecommunications competitors and our own entry into the field of phone service. The FCC and state regulatory authorities are considering, for example, whether common carrier regulation traditionally applied to incumbent local exchange carriers should be modified. The FCC recently decided that alternative voice technologies, like certain types of VOIP, should be regulated only at the federal level, rather than by individual states. As the FCC generally does not favor extensive regulation of such services, this decision appears to be a positive development for VOIP offerings. It is unclear how these regulatory matters ultimately will be resolved and how they will affect our potential expansion into phone service.

Pole Attachments

The Communications Act requires most utilities to provide cable systems with access to poles and conduits and simultaneously regulates the rates charged for this access. The Act specifies that significantly higher rates apply if the cable plant is providing telecommunications service, as well as traditional cable service. The FCC has clarified that a cable operator’s favorable pole rates are not endangered by the provision of Internet access. Although that determination was upheld by the United States Supreme Court, a subsequent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the proper regulatory classification of Internet service has once again created controversy in this area. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of that decision. It remains possible that the underlying pole attachment formula, or its application to Internet and telecommunications offerings, will be modified in a manner that substantially increases our pole attachment costs.

Cable Equipment

The FCC has undertaken several steps to promote competition in the delivery of cable equipment and compatibility with new digital technology. The FCC has expressly ruled that cable customers must be allowed to purchase set-top terminals from third parties and established a multi-year phase-in during which security functions (which would remain in the operator’s exclusive control) would be unbundled from the basic converter functions, which could then be provided by third party vendors. The first phase of implementation has already passed. A prohibition on cable operators leasing digital set-top terminals that integrate security and basic navigation functions is currently scheduled to go into effect as of July 1, 2006, although the FCC may extend the deadline.

The FCC has adopted rules implementing an agreement between major cable operators and manufacturers of consumer electronics on “plug and play” specifications for one-way digital televisions. The rules require cable operators to provide “CableCard” security modules and support to customer owned digital televisions and similar devices already equipped with built-in set-top terminal functionality. Cable operators must support basic home recording rights and copy protection rules for digital programming content. The FCC has adopted companion “broadcast flag” rules, requiring cable carriage of a code embedded in digital broadcast programming that will regulate the further use of copyright programming, although the FCC’s jurisdiction to impose broadcast flag rules is currently being challenged in court.

The FCC is conducting additional related rulemakings, and the cable and consumer electronics industries are currently negotiating an agreement that would establish additional “plug and play” specifications for two-way digital televisions.

The FCC rules are subject to challenge and inter-industry negotiations are ongoing. It is unclear how this process will develop and how it will affect our offering of cable equipment and our relationship with our customers.

Other Communications Act Provisions and FCC Regulatory Matters

In addition to the Communications Act provisions and FCC regulations noted above, there are other statutory provisions and FCC regulations affecting our business. The Communications Act, for example, includes cable-specific privacy obligations. The Act carefully limits our ability to collect and disclose personal information.

21

FCC regulations include a variety of additional areas, including, among other things: (1) equal employment opportunity obligations; (2) customer service standards; (3) technical service standards; (4) mandatory blackouts of certain network, syndicated and sports programming; (5) restrictions on political advertising; (6) restrictions on advertising in children’s programming; (7) restrictions on origination cablecasting; (8) restrictions on carriage of lottery programming; (9) sponsorship identification obligations; (10) closed captioning of video programming; (11) licensing of systems and facilities; and (12) maintenance of public files; and (13) emergency alert systems.

It is possible that Congress or the FCC will expand or modify its regulation of cable systems in the future, and we cannot predict at this time how that might impact our business. For example, there have been recent discussions about imposing “indecency” restrictions directly on cable programming.

Copyright

Cable systems are subject to federal copyright licensing covering carriage of television and radio broadcast signals. The possible modification or elimination of this compulsory copyright license is the subject of continuing legislative review and could adversely affect our ability to obtain desired broadcast programming. We cannot predict the outcome of this legislative activity. Moreover, the Copyright Office has not yet provided any guidance as to the how the compulsory copyright license should apply to newly offered digital broadcast signals.

Copyright clearances for non-broadcast programming services are arranged through private negotiations. Cable operators also must obtain music rights for locally originated programming and advertising from the major music performing rights organizations. These licensing fees have been the source of litigation in the past, and we cannot predict with certainty whether license fee disputes may arise in the future.

Franchise Matters

Cable systems generally are operated pursuant to nonexclusive franchises granted by a municipality or other state or local government entity in order to cross public rights-of-way. Cable franchises generally are granted for fixed terms and in many cases include monetary penalties for noncompliance and may be terminable if the franchisee fails to comply with material provisions.

The specific terms and conditions of cable franchises vary materially between jurisdictions. Each franchise generally contains provisions governing cable operations, franchise fees, system construction, maintenance, technical performance, and customer service standards. A number of states subject cable systems to the jurisdiction of centralized state government agencies, such as public utility commissions. Although local franchising authorities have considerable discretion in establishing franchise terms, there are certain federal protections. For example, federal law caps local franchise fees and includes renewal procedures designed to protect incumbent franchisees from arbitrary denials of renewal. Even if a franchise is renewed, however, the local franchising authority may seek to impose new and more onerous requirements as a condition of renewal. Similarly, if a local franchising authority’s consent is required for the purchase or sale of a cable system, the local franchising authority may attempt to impose more burdensome requirements as a condition for providing its consent.

Employees

As of December 31, 2004, we had approximately 15,500 full-time equivalent employees. At December 31, 2004, approximately 100 of our employees were represented by collective bargaining agreements. We have never experienced a work stoppage. At December 31, 2003, these numbers were approximately 15,500 and approximately 300, respectively.

The corporate office, which includes employees of Charter and Charter Holdco, is responsible for coordinating and overseeing our operations. The corporate office performs certain financial and administrative functions on a centralized basis such as accounting, taxes, billing, finance and acquisitions, payroll and benefit administration, information system design and support, internal audit, purchasing, marketing and programming contract administration and oversight and coordination of external auditors and consultants. The corporate office performs these services on a cost reimbursement basis pursuant to a management services agreement. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Transactions Arising out of Our Organizational Structure and Mr. Allen’s Investment in Charter and Its Subsidiaries — Intercompany Management Agreements” and “— Mutual Services Agreements.”

22

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal physical assets consist of cable distribution plant and equipment, including signal receiving, encoding and decoding devices, headend reception facilities, distribution systems and customer drop equipment for each of our cable systems.

Our cable plant and related equipment are generally attached to utility poles under pole rental agreements with local public utilities and telephone companies, and in certain locations are buried in underground ducts or trenches. We own or lease real property for signal reception sites and own most of our service vehicles.

Historically, our subsidiaries have owned the real property and buildings for our data centers, customer contact centers and our divisional administrative offices. Since early 2003 we have reduced our total real estate portfolio square footage by approximately 17% and have decreased our operating annual lease costs by approximately 30%. We plan to continue reducing our number of administrative offices and lease the space, where possible, while attempting to sell those existing locations that we believe are no longer required. Our subsidiaries generally have leased space for business offices throughout our operating divisions. Our headend and tower locations are located on owned or leased parcels of land, and we generally own the towers on which our equipment is located. Charter Holdco owns the real property and building for our principal executive offices.

The physical components of our cable systems require maintenance as well as periodic upgrades to support the new services and products we introduce. See “Item 1. Business – Our Network Technology.” We believe that our properties are generally in good operating condition and are suitable for our business operations.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Securities Class Actions and Derivative Suits

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits (the “Federal Class Actions”) were filed against Charter and certain of its former and present officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on behalf of all purchasers of Charter’s securities during the period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July 17 or July 18, 2002. Unspecified damages were sought by the plaintiffs. In general, the lawsuits alleged that Charter utilized misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning Charter’s operations and prospects. The Federal Class Actions were specifically and individually identified in public filings made by Charter prior to the date of this annual report.

In October 2002, Charter filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) to transfer the Federal Class Actions to the Eastern District of Missouri. On March 12, 2003, the Panel transferred the six Federal Class Actions not filed in the Eastern District of Missouri to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the eight Federal Class Actions already pending there. The Panel’s transfer order assigned the Federal Class Actions to Judge Charles A. Shaw. By virtue of a prior court order, StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC became lead plaintiff upon entry of the Panel’s transfer order. StoneRidge subsequently filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court subsequently consolidated the Federal Class Actions into a single action (the “Consolidated Federal Class Action”) for pretrial purposes. On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling conference with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the Consolidated Federal Class Action. Motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed. On February 10, 2004, in response to a joint motion made by StoneRidge and Defendants Charter, Vogel and Allen, the Court entered an order providing, among other things, that: (1) the parties who filed such motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90) days; and (2) all proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class Actions were stayed until May 10, 2004. On May 11, 2004, the Court extended the stay in the Consolidated Federal Class Action for an additional sixty (60) days. On July 12, 2004, the parties submitted a joint motion to again extend the stay, this time until September 10, 2004. The Court granted that extension on July 20, 2004. On August 5, 2004, Stoneridge, Charter and the individual defendants who were the subject of the suit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth agreements in principle to settle the Consolidated Federal Class Action. These parties subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement dated as of January 24, 2005 (described more fully below) which incorporate the terms of the August 5, 2004 Memorandum of Understanding.

The Consolidated Federal Class Action is entitled:

23

•

In re Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1506 (All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Charter Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III, Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen, LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS.

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit (the “State Derivative Action”) was filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri (the “Missouri State Court”), against Charter and its then current directors, as well as its former auditors. A substantively identical derivative action was later filed and consolidated into the State Derivative Action. The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified damages, allegedly on Charter’s behalf, are sought by the plaintiffs.

The consolidated State Derivative Action is entitled:

•

Kenneth Stacey, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications, Inc.

On March 12, 2004, an action substantively identical to the State Derivative Action was filed in the Missouri State Court, against Charter and certain of its current and former directors, as well as its former auditors. The plaintiffs in that case alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified damages, allegedly on Charter’s behalf, were sought by plaintiffs. On July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated this case with the State Derivative Action.

This action is entitled:

•

Thomas Schimmel, Derivatively on behalf on Nominal Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William D. Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Arthur Andersen, LLP, and Charter Communications, Inc.

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative suit (the “Federal Derivative Action”), was filed against Charter and its then current directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiff in that suit alleged that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and grossly mismanaged Charter by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified damages, allegedly on Charter’s behalf, were sought by the plaintiffs.

24

The Federal Derivative Action is entitled:

•

Arthur Cohn, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications, Inc.

As noted above, Charter entered into Memoranda of Understanding on August 5, 2004 setting forth agreements in principle regarding settlement of the Consolidated Federal Class Action, the State Derivative Action(s) and the Federal Derivative Action (the “Actions”). Charter and various other defendants in those actions subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement dated as of January 24, 2005, setting forth a settlement of the Actions in a manner consistent with the terms of the Memoranda of Understanding. The Stipulations of Settlement, along with various supporting documentation, were filed with the Court on February 2, 2005. The Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in exchange for a release of all claims by plaintiffs against Charter and its former and present officers and directors named in the Actions, Charter will pay to the plaintiffs a combination of cash and equity collectively valued at $144 million, which will include the fees and expenses of plaintiffs’ counsel. Of this amount, $64 million will be paid in cash (by Charter’s insurance carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40 million and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate warrant value of $40 million, with such values in each case being determined pursuant to formulas set forth in the Stipulations of Settlement. The warrants would have an exercise price equal to 150% of the fair market value (as defined) of Charter Class A common stock as of the date of the entry of the order of final judgment approving the settlement. In addition, Charter expects to issue additional shares of its Class A common stock to its insurance carrier having an aggregate value of $5 million. As part of the settlements, Charter will also commit to a variety of corporate governance changes, internal practices and public disclosures, some of which have already been undertaken and none of which are inconsistent with measures Charter is taking in connection with the recent conclusion of the SEC investigation described below. Documents related to the settlement of the Actions have now been executed and filed. On February 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the Actions. The settlement of each of the lawsuits remains conditioned upon, among other things, final judicial approval of the settlements following notice to the class, and dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which are related to the Federal Derivative Action. In the event that the valuation formula in the Stipulations provides for a per share value of less than $2.25, Charter may elect to terminate the settlement.

In addition to the Federal Class Actions, the State Derivative Action(s), the new Missouri State Court derivative action and the Federal Derivative Action, six putative class action lawsuits were filed against Charter and certain of its then current directors and officers in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Delaware Class Actions”). The lawsuits were filed after the filing of a Schedule 13D amendment by Mr. Allen indicating that he was exploring a number of possible alternatives with respect to restructuring or expanding his ownership interest in Charter. We believe the plaintiffs speculated that Mr. Allen might have been contemplating an unfair bid for shares of Charter or some other sort of going private transaction on unfair terms and generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by participating in or acquiescing to such a transaction. The lawsuits, which are substantively identical, were brought on behalf of Charter’s securities holders as of July 29, 2002, and sought unspecified damages and possible injunctive relief. However, no such transaction by Mr. Allen has been presented. On April 30, 2004, orders of dismissal without prejudice were entered in each of the Delaware Class Actions.

The Delaware Class Actions consist of:

	•	Eleanor Leonard, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 12, 2002;
	•	Helene Giarraputo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Ronald L. Nelson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 13, 2002;
	•	Ronald D. Wells, Whitney Counsil and Manny Varghese, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Charter Communications, Inc., Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, filed on August 13, 2002;

25

	•	Gilbert Herman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 14, 2002;
	•	Stephen Noteboom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 16, 2002; and
	•	John Fillmore on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on October 18, 2002.

Government Investigations

In August 2002, Charter became aware of a grand jury investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri into certain of its accounting and reporting practices, focusing on how Charter reported customer numbers, and its reporting of amounts received from digital set-top terminal suppliers for advertising. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has publicly stated that Charter is not a target of the investigation. Charter was also advised by the U. S. Attorney’s Office that no current officer or member of its board of directors is a target of the investigation. On July 24, 2003, a federal grand jury charged four former officers of Charter with conspiracy and mail and wire fraud, alleging improper accounting and reporting practices focusing on revenue from digital set-top terminal suppliers and inflated customer account numbers. Trial was set for February 7, 2005. Subsequently, each of the indicted former officers pled guilty to single conspiracy counts related to the original mail and wire fraud charges and are awaiting sentencing. We are fully cooperating with the investigation.

On November 4, 2002, Charter received an informal, non-public inquiry from the staff of the SEC. The SEC issued a formal order of investigation dated January 23, 2003, and subsequently served document and testimony subpoenas on Charter and a number of its former employees. The investigation and subpoenas generally concerned Charter’s prior reports with respect to its determination of the number of customers, and various of its accounting policies and practices including its capitalization of certain expenses and dealings with certain vendors, including programmers and digital set-top terminal suppliers. On July 27, 2004, the SEC and Charter reached a final agreement to settle the investigation. In the Settlement Agreement and Cease and Desist Order, Charter agreed to entry of an administrative order prohibiting any future violations of United States securities laws and requiring certain other remedial internal practices and public disclosures. Charter neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing, and the SEC assessed no fine against Charter.

Indemnification

Charter is generally required to indemnify each of the named individual defendants in connection with the matters described above pursuant to the terms of its bylaws and (where applicable) such individual defendants’ employment agreements. In accordance with these documents, in connection with the pending grand jury investigation, the now settled SEC investigation and the above described lawsuits, some of Charter’s current and former directors and current and former officers have been advanced certain costs and expenses incurred in connection with their defense. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions – Indemnification Advances” for greater detail. On February 22, 2005, Charter filed suit against four of its former officers who were indicted in the course of the grand jury investigation. These suits seek to recover the legal fees and other related expenses advanced to these individuals by Charter for the grand jury investigation, SEC investigation and class action and related lawsuits.

Other Litigation

In October 2001, two customers, Nikki Nicholls and Geraldine M. Barber, filed a class action suit against Charter Holdco in South Carolina Court of Common Pleas (the “South Carolina Class Action”), purportedly on behalf of a class of Charter Holdco’s customers, alleging that Charter Holdco improperly charged them a wire maintenance fee without request or permission. They also claimed that Charter Holdco improperly required them to rent analog and/or digital set-top terminals even though their television sets were “cable ready.” A substantively identical case was filed in the Superior Court of Athens — Clarke County, Georgia by Emma S. Tobar on March 26, 2002 (the “Georgia Class Action”), alleging a nationwide class for these claims. Charter Holdco removed the South Carolina Class Action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in November 2001, and moved to dismiss the suit in December 2001. The federal judge remanded the case to the South Carolina Court of Common

26

Pleas in August 2002 without ruling on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs subsequently moved for a default judgment, arguing that upon return to state court, Charter Holdco should have, but did not file a new motion to dismiss. The state court judge granted the plaintiff’s motion over Charter Holdco’s objection in September 2002. Charter Holdco immediately appealed that decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court, but those courts ruled that until a final judgment was entered against Charter Holdco, they lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

In January 2003, the Court of Common Pleas granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In October and November 2003, Charter Holdco filed motions (a) asking that court to set aside the default judgment, and (b) seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit for failure to state a claim. In January 2004, the Court of Common Pleas granted in part and denied in part Charter Holdco’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It also took under advisement Charter Holdco’s motion to set aside the default judgment. In April 2004, the parties to both the Georgia and South Carolina Class Actions participated in a mediation. The mediator made a proposal to the parties to settle the lawsuits. In May 2004, the parties accepted the mediator’s proposal and reached a tentative settlement, subject to final documentation and court approval. As a result of the tentative settlement, we recorded a special charge of $9 million in our consolidated statement of operations in the first quarter of 2004. On July 8, 2004, the Superior Court of Athens — Clarke County, Georgia granted a motion to amend the Tobar complaint to add Nicholls, Barber and April Jones as plaintiffs in the Georgia Class Action and to add any potential class members in South Carolina. The court also granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on that date. On August 2, 2004, the parties submitted a joint request to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas to stay the South Carolina Class Action pending final approval of the settlement and on August 17, 2004, that court granted the parties’ request. On November 10, 2004, the court granted final approval of the settlement, rejecting positions advanced by two objectors to the settlement. On December 13, 2004 the court entered a written order formally approving that settlement. On January 11, 2005, certain class members appealed the order entered by the Georgia court. That appeal was dismissed on or about February 3, 2005. Additionally, one of the objectors to this settlement recently filed a similar, but not identical, lawsuit.

The South Carolina Class Action was entitled:

•

Nikki Nicholls and Geraldine M. Barber, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and City of Spartanburg filed on October 29, 2001.

The Georgia Class Action is now entitled:

•

Emma S. Tobar, Nikki Nicholls, Geraldine M. Barber and April Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, et al, originally filed on March 26, 2002.

Outcome

In addition to the matters set forth above, Charter is also party to other lawsuits and claims that arose in the ordinary course of conducting its business. In the opinion of management, after taking into account recorded liabilities, the outcome of these other lawsuits and claims are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our liquidity.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2004.

27

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters.

(A) Market Information

Our Class A common stock is quoted on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol “CHTR.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the range of high and low last reported sale price per share of Class A common stock on the NASDAQ National Market. There is no established trading market for our Class B common stock.

Class A Common Stock

(B) Holders

As of December 31, 2004, there were 3,793 holders of record of our Class A common stock, one holder of our Class B common stock, and 13 holders of record of our Series A Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock.

(C) Dividends

Charter has not paid stock or cash dividends on any of its common stock, and we do not intend to pay cash dividends on common stock for the foreseeable future. Except for the cash dividends we pay on our outstanding Series A convertible redeemable preferred stock, we intend to retain future earnings, if any, to finance our business. Additionally, Charter is prohibited from declaring or paying cash dividends on any class of stock on par with or junior to the Series A convertible redeemable preferred stock, including the common stock, unless the cumulative dividends on the preferred stock and any accrued dividends on stock on par with the preferred stock for any past or current period have been paid or set aside in full.

Charter Holdco may make pro rata distributions to all holders of its common membership units, including Charter. Covenants in the indentures and credit agreements governing the debt obligations of Charter Communications Holdings and its subsidiaries restrict their ability to make distributions to us, and accordingly, limit our ability to declare or pay cash dividends. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

(D) Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

During 2004, there were no unregistered sales of securities of the registrant other than those previously reported on a Form 10-Q or Form 8-K.

For information regarding securities issued under our equity compensation plans, see “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management — Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans.”

28

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following table presents selected consolidated financial data for the periods indicated (dollars in millions, except share data):

29

(a)	Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the 2004 presentation.
(b)	In 2002, the Company restated its consolidated financial statements for 2001 and prior. The restatements were primarily related to the following categories: (i) launch incentives from programmers; (ii) customer incentives and inducements; (iii) capitalized labor and overhead costs; (iv) customer acquisition costs; (v) rebuild and upgrade of cable systems; (vi) deferred tax liabilities/franchise assets; and (vii) other adjustments. These adjustments reduced revenue for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 by $146 million and $108 million, respectively. The Company’s consolidated net loss decreased by $11 million for the year ended December 31, 2001. Net loss increased by $29 million for the year ended December 31, 2000, primarily due to adjustments related to the original accounting for acquisitions and for elements of the rebuild and upgrade activities.

Comparability of the above information from year to year is affected by acquisitions and dispositions completed by us. See Note 2 and Note 4 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Reference is made to “Certain Trends and Uncertainties” of this section and “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” which describes important factors that could cause actual results to differ from expectations and non-historical information contained herein. In addition, the following discussion should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements of Charter Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

Introduction

In 2004, we completed several transactions that improved our liquidity. Our efforts in this regard have resulted in the completion of a number of transactions in 2004, as follows:

	•	the December 2004 sale by our subsidiaries, CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp., of $550 million of senior floating rate notes due 2010;
	•	the November 2004 sale by Charter of $862.5 million of 5.875% convertible senior notes due 2009;
	•	the December 2004 redemption of all of our 5.75% convertible senior notes due 2005 ($588 million principal amount);
	•	the April 2004 sale of $1.5 billion of senior second-lien notes by our subsidiary, Charter Operating, together with the concurrent refinancing of its credit facilities; and
	•	the sale in the first half of 2004 of non-core cable systems for a total of $733 million, the proceeds of which were used to reduce indebtedness.

During the years 1999 through 2001, we grew significantly, principally through acquisitions of other cable businesses financed by debt and, to a lesser extent, equity. We have no current plans to pursue any significant acquisitions. However, we may pursue exchanges of non-strategic assets or divestitures, such as the sale of cable systems to Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC discussed above. We therefore do not believe that our historical growth rates are accurate indicators of future growth.

The industry’s and our most significant operational challenges in 2004 and 2003 included competition from DBS providers and DSL service providers. See “Business — Competition.’’ We believe that competition from DBS has resulted in net analog video customer losses and decreased growth rates for digital video customers. Competition from DSL providers combined with limited opportunities to expand our customer base now that approximately 28% of our analog video customers subscribe to our high-speed data services has resulted in decreased growth rates for high-speed data customers. In the recent past, we have grown revenues by offsetting video customer losses with price increases and sales of incremental advanced services such as high-speed data, video on demand, digital video recorders and high definition television. We expect to continue to grow revenues through continued growth in high-speed data and incremental new services including VOIP telephony, high definition television, VOD and DVR service.

30

Historically, our ability to fund operations and investing activities has depended on our continued access to credit under our subsidiaries’ credit facilities. We expect we will continue to borrow under our subsidiaries’ credit facilities from time to time to fund cash needs. The occurrence of an event of default under our subsidiaries’ credit facilities could result in borrowings from these facilities being unavailable to us and could, in the event of a payment default or acceleration, trigger events of default under our notes and our subsidiaries’ outstanding notes and would have a material adverse effect on us. Approximately $30 million of indebtedness under our subsidiaries’ credit facilities is scheduled to mature during 2005. We expect to fund payment of such indebtedness through borrowings under our subsidiaries’ revolving credit facilities.

Overview of Operations

Approximately 86% of our revenues for the each of the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 are attributable to monthly subscription fees charged to customers for our video, high-speed data, telephone and commercial services provided by our cable systems. Generally, these customer subscriptions may be discontinued by the customer at any time. The remaining 14% of revenue is derived primarily from advertising revenues, franchise fee revenues, which are collected by us but then paid to local franchising authorities, pay-per-view and VOD programming where users are charged a fee for individual programs viewed, installation or reconnection fees charged to customers to commence or reinstate service, and commissions related to the sale of merchandise by home shopping services. We have increased revenues during the past three years, primarily through the sale of digital video and high-speed data services to new and existing customers and price increases on video services offset in part by dispositions of systems. Going forward, our goal is to increase revenues by stabilizing our analog video customer base, implementing price increases on certain services and packages and increasing the number of our customers who purchase high-speed data services, digital video and new products and services such as VOIP telephony, VOD, high definition television and DVR service. To accomplish this, we are increasing prices for certain services and we are offering new bundling of services combining digital video and our advanced services (such as high-speed data service and high definition television) at what we believe are attractive price points. See “Business — Sales and Marketing” for more details.

Our success in our efforts to grow revenues and improve margins will be impacted by our ability to compete against companies with often fewer regulatory burdens, easier access to financing, greater personnel resources, greater brand name recognition and long-established relationships with regulatory authorities and customers. Additionally, controlling our cost of operations is critical, particularly cable programming costs, which have historically increased at rates in excess of inflation and are expected to continue to increase. See “Business — Programming” for more details. We are attempting to control our costs of operations by maintaining strict controls on expenses. More specifically, we are focused on managing our cost structure by renegotiating programming agreements to reduce the rate of historical increases in programming cost, managing our workforce to control increases and improve productivity, and leveraging our size in purchasing activities.

Our expenses primarily consist of operating costs, selling, general and administrative expenses, depreciation and amortization expense and interest expense. Operating costs primarily include programming costs, the cost of our workforce, cable service related expenses, advertising sales costs, franchise fees and expenses related to customer billings. Our income from operations decreased from $516 million for year ended December 31, 2003 to loss from operations of $2.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004. We had a negative operating margin (defined as income (loss) from operations divided by revenues) of 41% for the year ended December 31, 2004 whereas for the year ended December 31, 2003, we had a positive operating margin of 11%. The decline in income from operations and operating margin for the year end December 31, 2004 is principally due to the impairment of franchises of $2.4 billion recorded in the third quarter of 2004. The year ended December 31, 2004 also includes a gain on the sale of certain cable systems to Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC which is substantially offset by an increase in option compensation expense and special charges when compared to the year ended December 31, 2003. For the year ended December 31, 2003, income from operations was $516 million and for the year ended December 31, 2002, our loss from operations was $4.3 billion. Operating margin was 11% for the year ended December 31, 2003, whereas for the year ending December 31, 2002, we had negative operating margin of 95%. The improvement in income from operations and operating margin from 2002 to 2003 was principally due to a $4.6 billion franchise impairment charge in the fourth quarter of 2002 which did not recur in 2003 and the recognition of gains in 2003 of $93 million related to unfavorable contracts and other settlements and gain on sale of system. Although we do not expect charges for impairment in the future of comparable magnitude, potential charges could occur due to changes in market conditions.

We have a history of net losses. Further, we expect to continue to report net losses for the foreseeable future. Our net losses are principally attributable to insufficient revenue to cover the interest costs on our high level of debt, the

31

depreciation expenses that we incur resulting from the capital investments we have made in our cable properties, and the amortization and impairment of our franchise intangibles. We expect that these expenses (other than impairment of franchises) will remain significant, and we therefore expect to continue to report net losses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, because minority interest in Charter Holdco was substantially eliminated at December 31, 2003, beginning in the first quarter of 2004, we began to absorb substantially all future losses before income taxes that otherwise would have been allocated to minority interest. This resulted in an additional $2.4 billion of net loss for the year ended December 31, 2004. Under our existing capital structure, future losses will continue to be absorbed by Charter.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Certain of our accounting policies require our management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments. Management has discussed these policies with the Audit Committee of Charter’s board of directors and the Audit Committee has reviewed the following disclosure. We consider the following policies to be the most critical in understanding the estimates, assumptions and judgments that are involved in preparing our financial statements and the uncertainties that could affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows:

	•	Capitalization of labor and overhead costs;
	•	Useful lives of property, plant and equipment;
	•	Impairment of property, plant, and equipment, franchises, and goodwill;
	•	Income taxes; and
	•	Litigation.

In addition, there are other items within our financial statements that require estimates or judgment but are not deemed critical, such as the allowance for doubtful accounts, but changes in judgment, or estimates in these other items could also have a material impact on our financial statements.

Capitalization of labor and overhead costs. The cable industry is capital intensive, and a large portion of our resources are spent on capital activities associated with extending, rebuilding, and upgrading our cable network. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the net carrying amount of our property, plant and equipment (consisting primarily of cable network assets) was approximately $6.3 billion (representing 36% of total assets) and $7.0 billion (representing 33% of total assets), respectively. Total capital expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were approximately $924 million, $854 million and $2.2 billion, respectively.

Costs associated with network construction, initial customer installations, installation refurbishments and the addition of network equipment necessary to provide advanced services are capitalized. Costs capitalized as part of initial customer installations include materials, direct labor, and certain indirect costs. These indirect costs are associated with the activities of personnel who assist in connecting and activating the new service and consist of compensation and overhead costs associated with these support functions. The costs of disconnecting service at a customer’s dwelling or reconnecting service to a previously installed dwelling are charged to operating expense in the period incurred. Costs for repairs and maintenance are charged to operating expense as incurred, while equipment replacement and betterments, including replacement of cable drops from the pole to the dwelling, are capitalized.

We make judgments regarding the installation and construction activities to be capitalized. We capitalize direct labor and certain indirect costs (“overhead’’) using standards developed from actual costs and applicable operational data. We calculate standards for items such as the labor rates, overhead rates and the actual amount of time required to perform a capitalizable activity. For example, the standard amounts of time required to perform capitalizable activities are based on studies of the time required to perform such activities. Overhead rates are established based on an analysis of the nature of costs incurred in support of capitalizable activities and a determination of the portion of costs that is directly attributable to capitalizable activities. The impact of changes that resulted from these studies were not significant in the periods presented.

Labor costs directly associated with capital projects are capitalized. We capitalize direct labor costs associated with personnel based upon the specific time devoted to network construction and customer installation activities. Capitalizable activities performed in connection with customer installations include such activities as:

•

Scheduling a “truck roll” to the customer’s dwelling for service connection;

32

	•	Verification of serviceability to the customer’s dwelling (i.e., determining whether the customer’s dwelling is capable of receiving service by our cable network and/or receiving advanced or data services);
	•	Customer premise activities performed by in-house field technicians and third-party contractors in connection with customer installations, installation of network equipment in connection with the installation of expanded services and equipment replacement and betterment; and
	•	Verifying the integrity of the customer’s network connection by initiating test signals downstream from the headend to the customer’s digital set-top terminal.

Judgment is required to determine the extent to which overhead is incurred as a result of specific capital activities, and therefore should be capitalized. The primary costs that are included in the determination of the overhead rate are (i) employee benefits and payroll taxes associated with capitalized direct labor, (ii) direct variable costs associated with capitalizable activities, consisting primarily of installation and construction vehicle costs, (iii) the cost of support personnel, such as dispatch, that directly assist with capitalizable installation activities, and (iv) indirect costs directly attributable to capitalizable activities.

While we believe our existing capitalization policies are appropriate, a significant change in the nature or extent of our system activities could affect management’s judgment about the extent to which we should capitalize direct labor or overhead in the future. We monitor the appropriateness of our capitalization policies, and perform updates to our internal studies on an ongoing basis to determine whether facts or circumstances warrant a change to our capitalization policies. We capitalized direct labor and overhead of $164 million, $174 million and $335 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. Capitalized internal direct labor and overhead costs substantially decreased in 2004 and 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to the substantial completion of the upgrade of our systems and a decrease in the amount of capitalizable installation costs.

Useful lives of property, plant and equipment. We evaluate the appropriateness of estimated useful lives assigned to our property, plant and equipment, based on annual studies of such useful lives, and revise such lives to the extent warranted by changing facts and circumstances. Any changes in estimated useful lives as a result of these studies, which were not significant in the periods presented, will be reflected prospectively beginning in the period in which the study is completed. The effect of a one-year decrease in the weighted average remaining useful life of our property, plant and equipment would be an increase in depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2004 of approximately $296 million. The effect of a one-year increase in the weighted average useful life of our property, plant and equipment would be a decrease in depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2004 of approximately $198 million.

Depreciation expense related to property, plant and equipment totaled $1.5 billion, $1.5 billion and $1.4 billion, representing approximately 21%, 34% and 16% of costs and expenses, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Depreciation is recorded using the straight-line composite method over management’s estimate of the estimated useful lives of the related assets as listed below:

Impairment of property, plant and equipment, franchises and goodwill. As discussed above, the net carrying value of our property, plant and equipment is significant. We also have recorded a significant amount of cost related to franchises, pursuant to which we are granted the right to operate our cable distribution network throughout our service areas. The net carrying value of franchises as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 was approximately $9.9 billion (representing 56% of total assets) and $13.7 billion (representing 64% of total assets), respectively. Furthermore, our noncurrent assets include approximately $52 million of goodwill.

We adopted SFAS No. 142 on January 1, 2002. SFAS No. 142 requires that franchise intangible assets that meet specified indefinite-life criteria no longer be amortized against earnings, but instead must be tested for impairment annually based on valuations, or more frequently as warranted by events or changes in circumstances. In determining whether our franchises have an indefinite-life, we considered the exclusivity of the franchise, the expected costs of franchise renewals, and the technological state of the associated cable systems with a view to whether or not we are in compliance with any technology upgrading requirements. We have concluded that as of December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 more than 99% of our franchises qualify for indefinite-life treatment under

33

SFAS No. 142, and that less than one percent of our franchises do not qualify for indefinite-life treatment due to technological or operational factors that limit their lives. Costs of finite-lived franchises, along with costs associated with franchise renewals, are amortized on a straight-line basis over 10 years, which represents management’s best estimate of the average remaining useful lives of such franchises. Franchise amortization expense was $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and $9 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002. We expect that amortization expense on franchise assets will be approximately $3 million annually for each of the next five years. Actual amortization expense in future periods could differ from these estimates as a result of new intangible asset acquisitions or divestitures, changes in useful lives and other relevant factors. Our goodwill is also deemed to have an indefinite life under SFAS No. 142.

SFAS No. 144, Accounting for Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, requires that we evaluate the recoverability of our property, plant and equipment and franchise assets which did not qualify for indefinite-life treatment under SFAS No. 142 upon the occurrence of events or changes in circumstances which indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Such events or changes in circumstances could include such factors as the impairment of our indefinite-life franchises under SFAS No. 142, changes in technological advances, fluctuations in the fair value of such assets, adverse changes in relationships with local franchise authorities, adverse changes in market conditions or poor operating results. Under SFAS No. 144, a long-lived asset is deemed impaired when the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the projected undiscounted future cash flows associated with the asset. No impairments of long-lived assets were recorded in the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 or 2002. We were also required to evaluate the recoverability of our indefinite-life franchises, as well as goodwill, as of January 1, 2002 upon adoption of SFAS No. 142, and on an annual basis or more frequently as deemed necessary.

Under both SFAS No. 144 and SFAS No. 142, if an asset is determined to be impaired, it is required to be written down to its estimated fair market value. We determine fair market value based on estimated discounted future cash flows, using reasonable and appropriate assumptions that are consistent with internal forecasts. Our assumptions include these and other factors: penetration rates for analog and digital video and high-speed data, revenue growth rates, expected operating margins and capital expenditures. Considerable management judgment is necessary to estimate future cash flows, and such estimates include inherent uncertainties, including those relating to the timing and amount of future cash flows and the discount rate used in the calculation.

Based on the guidance prescribed in Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 02-7, Unit of Accounting for Testing of Impairment of Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets, franchises were aggregated into essentially inseparable asset groups to conduct the valuations. The asset groups generally represent geographic clustering of our cable systems into groups by which such systems are managed. Management believes such groupings represent the highest and best use of those assets. We determined that our franchises were impaired upon adoption of SFAS No. 142 on January 1, 2002 and as a result recorded the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of $206 million (approximately $572 million before minority interest effects of $306 million and tax effects of $60 million). As required by SFAS No. 142, the standard has not been retroactively applied to results for the period prior to adoption.

Our valuations, which are based on the present value of projected after tax cash flows, result in a value of property, plant and equipment, franchises, customer relationships and our total entity value. The value of goodwill is the difference between the total entity value and amounts assigned to the other assets. The use of different valuation assumptions or definitions of franchises or customer relationships, such as our inclusion of the value of selling additional services to our current customers within customer relationships versus franchises, could significantly impact our valuations and any resulting impairment.

Franchises, for valuation purposes, are defined as the future economic benefits of the right to solicit and service potential customers (customer marketing rights), and the right to deploy and market new services such as interactivity and telephony to the potential customers (service marketing rights). Fair value is determined based on estimated discounted future cash flows using assumptions consistent with internal forecasts. The franchise after-tax cash flow is calculated as the after-tax cash flow generated by the potential customers obtained and the new services added to those customers in future periods. The sum of the present value of the franchises’ after-tax cash flow in years 1 through 10 and the continuing value of the after-tax cash flow beyond year 10 yields the fair value of the franchise. Prior to the adoption of EITF Topic D-108, Use of the Residual Method to Value Acquired Assets Other than Goodwill, discussed below, we followed a residual method of valuing our franchise assets, which had the effect of including goodwill with the franchise assets.

We follow the guidance of EITF Issue 02-17, Recognition of Customer Relationship Intangible Assets Acquired in a Business Combination, in valuing customer relationships. Customer relationships, for valuation purposes, represent

34

the value of the business relationship with our existing customers and are calculated by projecting future after-tax cash flows from these customers including the right to deploy and market additional services such as interactivity and telephony to these customers. The present value of these after-tax cash flows yields the fair value of the customer relationships. Substantially all our acquisitions occurred prior to January 1, 2002. We did not record any value associated with the customer relationship intangibles related to those acquisitions. For acquisitions subsequent to January 1, 2002, we did assign a value to the customer relationship intangible, which is amortized over its estimated useful life.

In September 2004, EITF Topic D-108, Use of the Residual Method to Value Acquired Assets Other than Goodwill, was issued, which requires the direct method of separately valuing all intangible assets and does not permit goodwill to be included in franchise assets. We performed an impairment assessment as of September 30, 2004, and adopted Topic D-108 in that assessment resulting in a total franchise impairment of approximately $3.3 billion. We recorded a cumulative effect of accounting change of $765 million (approximately $875 million before tax effects of $91 million and minority interest effects of $19 million) for the year ended December 31, 2004 representing the portion of our total franchise impairment attributable to no longer including goodwill with franchise assets. The effect of the adoption was to increase net loss and loss per share by $765 million and $2.55 for the year ended December 31, 2004. The remaining $2.4 billion of the total franchise impairment was attributable to the use of lower projected growth rates and the resulting revised estimates of future cash flows in our valuation and was recorded as impairment of franchises in our consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2004. Sustained analog video customer losses by us and our industry peers in the third quarter of 2004 primarily as a result of increased competition from DBS providers and decreased growth rates in our and our industry peers’ high speed data customers in the third quarter of 2004, in part as a result of increased competition from DSL providers, led us to lower our projected growth rates and accordingly revise our estimates of future cash flows from those used at October 1, 2003. See “Business — Competition.”

The valuation completed at October 1, 2003 showed franchise values in excess of book value and thus resulted in no impairment. Our annual impairment assessment as of October 1, 2002, based on revised estimates from January 1, 2002 of future cash flows and projected long-term growth rates in our valuation, led to the recognition of a $4.6 billion impairment charge in the fourth quarter of 2002.

The valuations used in our impairment assessments involve numerous assumptions as noted above. While economic conditions, applicable at the time of the valuation, indicate the combination of assumptions utilized in the valuations are reasonable, as market conditions change so will the assumptions with a resulting impact on the valuation and consequently the potential impairment charge.

Sensitivity Analysis. The effect on the impairment charge recognized in the third quarter of 2004 of the indicated increase/decrease in the selected assumptions is shown below:

(1)	Operating Cash Flow is defined as revenues less operating expenses and selling general and administrative expenses.
(2)	Long-Term Growth Rate is the rate of cash flow growth beyond year ten.
(3)	A percentage point change of one point equates to 100 basis points.

Income Taxes. All operations are held through Charter Holdco and its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Charter Holdco and the majority of its subsidiaries are not subject to income tax. However, certain of these subsidiaries are corporations and are subject to income tax. All of the taxable income, gains, losses, deductions and credits of Charter Holdco are passed through to its members: Charter, Charter Investment, Inc. and Vulcan Cable III Inc. Charter is responsible for its share of taxable income or loss of Charter Holdco allocated to it in accordance with the Charter Holdco limited liability company agreement (“LLC Agreement”) and partnership tax rules and regulations.

35

The LLC Agreement provided for certain special allocations of net tax profits and net tax losses (such net tax profits and net tax losses being determined under the applicable federal income tax rules for determining capital accounts). Under the LLC Agreement, through the end of 2003, net tax losses of Charter Holdco that would otherwise have been allocated to Charter based generally on its percentage ownership of outstanding common units were allocated instead to membership units held by Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. (the “Special Loss Allocations”) to the extent of their respective capital account balances. After 2003, under the LLC Agreement, net tax losses of Charter Holdco are allocated to Charter, Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. based generally on their respective percentage ownership of outstanding common units to the extent of their respective capital account balances. The LLC Agreement further provides that, beginning at the time Charter Holdco generates net tax profits, the net tax profits that would otherwise have been allocated to Charter based generally on its percentage ownership of outstanding common membership units will instead generally be allocated to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. (the “Special Profit Allocations”). The Special Profit Allocations to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. will generally continue until the cumulative amount of the Special Profit Allocations offsets the cumulative amount of the Special Loss Allocations. The amount and timing of the Special Profit Allocations are subject to the potential application of, and interaction with, the Curative Allocation Provisions described in the following paragraph. The LLC Agreement generally provides that any additional net tax profits are to be allocated among the members of Charter Holdco based generally on their respective percentage ownership of Charter Holdco common membership units.

Because the respective capital account balance of each of Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. was reduced to zero by December 31, 2002, certain net tax losses of Charter Holdco that were to be allocated for 2002, 2003, 2004 and possibly later years, subject to resolution of the issue described in “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Transactions Arising out of Our Organizational Structure and Mr. Allen’s Investment in Charter Communications, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries — Equity Put Rights — CC VIII,” to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. instead have been and will be allocated to Charter (the “Regulatory Allocations”). The LLC Agreement further provides that, to the extent possible, the effect of the Regulatory Allocations is to be offset over time pursuant to certain curative allocation provisions (the “Curative Allocation Provisions”) so that, after certain offsetting adjustments are made, each member’s capital account balance is equal to the capital account balance such member would have had if the Regulatory Allocations had not been part of the LLC Agreement. The cumulative amount of the actual tax losses allocated to Charter as a result of the Regulatory Allocations through the year ended December 31, 2004 is approximately $4.0 billion.

As a result of the Special Loss Allocations and the Regulatory Allocations referred to above, the cumulative amount of losses of Charter Holdco allocated to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. is in excess of the amount that would have been allocated to such entities if the losses of Charter Holdco had been allocated among its members in proportion to their respective percentage ownership of Charter Holdco common membership units. The cumulative amount of such excess losses was approximately $2.1 billion through December 31, 2003 and $1.0 billion through December 31, 2004.

In certain situations, the Special Loss Allocations, Special Profit Allocations, Regulatory Allocations and Curative Allocation Provisions described above could result in Charter paying taxes in an amount that is more or less than if Charter Holdco had allocated net tax profits and net tax losses among its members based generally on the number of common membership units owned by such members. This could occur due to differences in (i) the character of the allocated income (e.g., ordinary versus capital), (ii) the allocated amount and timing of tax depreciation and tax amortization expense due to the application of section 704(c) under the Internal Revenue Code, (iii) the potential interaction between the Special Profit Allocations and the Curative Allocation Provisions, (iv) the amount and timing of alternative minimum taxes paid by Charter, if any, (v) the apportionment of the allocated income or loss among the states in which Charter Holdco does business, and (vi) future federal and state tax laws. Further, in the event of new capital contributions to Charter Holdco, it is possible that the tax effects of the Special Profit Allocations, Special Loss Allocations, Regulatory Allocations and Curative Allocation Provisions will change significantly pursuant to the provisions of the income tax regulations or the terms of a contribution agreement with respect to such contribution. Such change could defer the actual tax benefits to be derived by Charter with respect to the net tax losses allocated to it or accelerate the actual taxable income to Charter with respect to the net tax profits allocated to it. As a result, it is possible under certain circumstances, that Charter could receive future allocations of taxable income in excess of its currently allocated tax deductions and available tax loss carryforwards. The ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards is potentially subject to certain limitations as discussed below.

In addition, under their exchange agreement with Charter, Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. may exchange some or all of their membership units in Charter Holdco for Charter’s Class B common stock, be merged with Charter, or be acquired by Charter in a non-taxable reorganization. If such an exchange were to take place prior to the date that the Special Profit Allocation provisions had fully offset the Special Loss Allocations, Vulcan

36

Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. could elect to cause Charter Holdco to make the remaining Special Profit Allocations to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. immediately prior to the consummation of the exchange. In the event Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. choose not to make such election or to the extent such allocations are not possible, Charter would then be allocated tax profits attributable to the membership units received in such exchange pursuant to the Special Profit Allocation provisions. Mr. Allen has generally agreed to reimburse Charter for any incremental income taxes that Charter would owe as a result of such an exchange and any resulting future Special Profit Allocations to Charter. The ability of Charter to utilize net operating loss carryforwards is potentially subject to certain limitations (See “Certain Trends and Uncertainties — Utilization of Net Operating Loss Carryforwards”.) If Charter were to become subject to such limitations (whether as a result of an exchange described above or otherwise), and as a result were to owe taxes resulting from the Special Profit Allocations, then Mr. Allen may not be obligated to reimburse Charter for such income taxes.

As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we have recorded net deferred income tax liabilities of $216 million and $417 million, respectively. Additionally, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we have deferred tax assets of $3.5 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, which primarily relate to financial and tax losses allocated to Charter from Charter Holdco. We are required to record a valuation allowance when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred income tax assets will not be realized. Given the uncertainty surrounding our ability to utilize our deferred tax assets, these items have been offset with a corresponding valuation allowance of $3.2 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

We are currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service for the tax years ending December 31, 1999 and 2000. Management does not expect the results of this examination to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our liquidity, including our ability to comply with our debt covenants.

Litigation. Legal contingencies have a high degree of uncertainty. When a loss from a contingency becomes estimable and probable, a reserve is established. The reserve reflects management’s best estimate of the probable cost of ultimate resolution of the matter and is revised accordingly as facts and circumstances change and, ultimately when the matter is brought to closure. We have established reserves for certain matters including those described in “Business — Legal Proceedings.’’ If any of the litigation matters described in “Business — Legal Proceedings’’ is resolved unfavorably resulting in payment obligations in excess of management’s best estimate of the outcome, such resolution could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our liquidity.

37

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth the percentages of revenues that items in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations constitute for the indicated periods (dollars in millions, except per share and share data):

Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2003

Revenues. Revenues increased by $158 million, or 3%, from $4.8 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $5.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004. This increase is principally the result of an increase of 318,800 and 2,800 high-speed data customers and digital video customers, respectively, as well as price increases for video and high-speed data services, and is offset partially by a decrease of 439,800 analog video customers. Included in the reduction in analog video customers and reducing the increase in digital video and high-speed data customers are 230,800 analog video customers, 83,300 digital video customers and 37,800 high-speed data customers sold in the cable system sales to Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC, which closed in March and April 2004 (collectively, with the cable system sale to WaveDivision Holdings, LLC in October 2003, referred to herein as the “Systems Sales”). The Systems Sales reduced the increase in revenues by $160 million. Our goal is to increase revenues by improving

38

customer service which we believe will stabilize our analog video customer base, implementing price increases on certain services and packages and increasing the number of our customers who purchase high-speed data services, digital video and advanced products and services such as VOIP telephony, VOD, high definition television and DVR service.

Average monthly revenue per analog video customer increased from $61.92 for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $68.02 for the year ended December 31, 2004 primarily as a result of price increases and incremental revenues from advanced services. Average monthly revenue per analog video customer represents total annual revenue, divided by twelve, divided by the average number of analog video customers during the respective period.

Revenues by service offering were as follows (dollars in millions):

Video revenues consist primarily of revenues from analog and digital video services provided to our non-commercial customers. Video revenues decreased by $88 million, or 3%, from $3.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $3.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004. Approximately $116 million of the decrease was the result of the Systems Sales and approximately an additional $65 million related to a decline in analog video customers. These decreases were offset by increases of approximately $66 million resulting from price increases and incremental video revenues from existing customers and approximately $27 million resulting from an increase in digital video customers.

Revenues from high-speed data services provided to our non-commercial customers increased $185 million, or 33%, from $556 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $741 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. Approximately $163 million of the increase related to the increase in the average number of customers receiving high-speed data services, whereas approximately $35 million related to the increase in average price of the service. The increase in high-speed data revenues was reduced by approximately $12 million as a result of the Systems Sales.

Advertising sales revenues consist primarily of revenues from commercial advertising customers, programmers and other vendors. Advertising sales increased $26 million, or 10%, from $263 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $289 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 primarily as a result of an increase in national advertising campaigns and election related advertising. The increase was offset by a decrease of $7 million as a result of the System Sales. For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, we received $16 million and $15 million, respectively, in advertising revenue from vendors.

Commercial revenues consist primarily of revenues from cable video and high-speed data services to our commercial customers. Commercial revenues increased $34 million, or 17%, from $204 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, to $238 million for the year ended December 31, 2004, primarily as a result of an increase in commercial high-speed data revenues. The increase was reduced by approximately $14 million as a result of the Systems Sales.

Other revenues consist of revenues from franchise fees, telephony revenue, equipment rental, customer installations, home shopping, dial-up Internet service, late payment fees, wire maintenance fees and other miscellaneous revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, franchise fees represented approximately 49% and 48%, respectively, of total other revenues. Other revenues increased $1 million from $335 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $336 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily the

39

result of an increase in home shopping and infomercial revenue and was partially offset by approximately $11 million as a result of the Systems Sales.

Operating expenses. Operating expenses increased $128 million, or 7%, from $2.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $2.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in operating expenses was reduced by approximately $59 million as a result of the System Sales. Programming costs included in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations were $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion, representing 63% and 64% of total operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Key expense components as a percentage of revenues were as follows (dollars in millions):

Programming costs consist primarily of costs paid to programmers for analog, premium and digital channels and pay-per-view programming. The increase in programming costs of $70 million, or 6%, for the year ended December 31, 2004 over the year ended December 31, 2003 was a result of price increases, particularly in sports programming, an increased number of channels carried on our systems, and an increase in digital video customers, partially offset by a decrease in analog video customers. Additionally, the increase in programming costs was reduced by $42 million as a result of the Systems Sales. Programming costs were offset by the amortization of payments received from programmers in support of launches of new channels of $59 million and $62 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Programming costs for the year ended December 31, 2004 also include a $5 million reduction related to the settlement of a dispute with TechTV, Inc., a related party. See Note 22 to the consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

In every year we have operated, our cable programming costs have increased in excess of the U.S. inflation and cost-of-living increases, and we expect them to continue to increase because of a variety of factors, including inflationary or negotiated annual increases, additional programming being provided to customers and increased costs to purchase or produce programming. In 2005, we expect programming costs to increase at a higher rate than in 2004. These costs will be determined in part on the outcome of programming negotiations in 2005 and will likely be subject to offsetting events or otherwise affected by factors similar to the ones mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Our increasing programming costs will result in declining operating margins for our video services to the extent we are unable to pass on cost increases to our customers. We expect to partially offset any resulting margin compression from our traditional video services with revenue from advanced video services, increased high-speed data revenues, advertising revenues and commercial service revenues.

Advertising sales expenses consist of costs related to traditional advertising services provided to advertising customers, including salaries, benefits and commissions. Advertising sales expenses increased $10 million, or 11%, primarily as a result of increased salary, benefit and commission costs. The increase in advertising sales expenses was reduced by $2 million as a result of the System Sales. Service costs consist primarily of service personnel salaries and benefits, franchise fees, system utilities, Internet service provider fees, maintenance and pole rental expense. The increase in service costs of $48 million, or 8%, resulted primarily from additional activity associated with ongoing infrastructure maintenance. The increase in service costs was reduced by $15 million as a result of the System Sales.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $31 million, or 3%, from $940 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $971 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was reduced by $22 million as a result of the System Sales. Key components of expense as a percentage of revenues were as follows (dollars in millions):

40

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and benefits, rent expense, billing costs, call center costs, internal network costs, bad debt expense and property taxes. The increase in general and administrative expenses of $16 million, or 2%, resulted primarily from increases in costs associated with our commercial business of $21 million, third party call center costs resulting from increased emphasis on customer service of $10 million and bad debt expense of $10 million offset by decreases in costs associated with salaries and benefits of $21 million and rent expense of $3 million.

Marketing expenses increased $15 million, or 14%, as a result of an increased investment in marketing and branding campaigns.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $42 million, or 3%, to $1.5 billion in 2004. The increase in depreciation related to an increase in capital expenditures, which was partially offset by lower depreciation as the result of the Systems Sales.

Impairment of franchises. We performed an impairment assessment during the third quarter of 2004. The use of lower projected growth rates and the resulting revised estimates of future cash flows in our valuation, primarily as a result of increased competition, led to the recognition of a $2.4 billion impairment charge for the year ended December 31, 2004.

(Gain) loss on sale of assets, net. Gain on sale of assets of $86 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 primarily represents the pretax gain of $104 million realized on the sale of systems to Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC which closed in March and April 2004 offset by losses recognized on the disposition of plant and equipment. Loss on sale of assets of $5 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 represents the loss recognized on the disposition of plant and equipment offset by a gain of $21 million recognized on the sale of cable systems in Port Orchard, Washington which closed on October 1, 2003.

Option compensation expense, net. Option compensation expense of $31 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 primarily represents $22 million related to options granted and expensed in accordance with SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. Additionally, during the year ended December 31, 2004, we expensed approximately $8 million related to a stock option exchange program, under which our employees were offered the right to exchange all stock options (vested and unvested) issued under the 1999 Charter Communications Option Plan and 2001 Stock Incentive Plan that had an exercise price over $10 per share for shares of restricted Charter Class A common stock or, in some instances, cash. The exchange offer closed in February 2004. Option compensation expense of $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 primarily represents options expensed in accordance with SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. See Note 19 to our consolidated financial statements contained in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” for more information regarding our option compensation plans.

Special charges, net. Special charges of $104 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 represents approximately $85 million of aggregate value of the Charter Class A common stock and warrants to purchase Charter Class A common stock contemplated to be issued as part of a settlement of the consolidated federal class actions, state derivative actions and federal derivative action lawsuits, approximately $10 million of litigation costs related to the tentative settlement of a South Carolina national class action suit, all of which settlements are subject to final documentation and court approval and approximately $12 million of severance and related costs of our workforce reduction and realignment. Special charges for the year ended December 31, 2004 were offset by $3 million received from a third party in settlement of a dispute. Special charges of $21 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 represents approximately $26 million of severance and related costs of our workforce reduction

41

partially offset by a $5 million credit from a settlement from the Internet service provider Excite@Home related to the conversion of about 145,000 high-speed data customers to our Charter Pipeline service in 2001.

Unfavorable contracts and other settlements. Unfavorable contracts and other settlements of $5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 relates to changes in estimated legal reserves established in connection with prior business combinations, which based on an evaluation of current facts and circumstances, are no longer required.

Unfavorable contracts and other settlements of $72 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 represents the settlement of estimated liabilities recorded in connection with prior business combinations. The majority of this benefit (approximately $52 million) is due to the renegotiation in 2003 of a major programming contract, for which a liability had been recorded for the above market portion of that agreement in conjunction with the Falcon acquisition in 1999 and the Bresnan acquisition in 2000. The remaining benefit relates to the reversal of previously recorded liabilities, which are no longer required.

Interest expense, net. Net interest expense increased by $113 million, or 7%, from $1.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $1.7 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in net interest expense was a result of an increase in our average borrowing rate from 7.99% in the year ended December 31, 2003 to 8.66% in the year ended December 31, 2004 partially offset by a decrease of $306 million in average debt outstanding from $18.9 billion in 2003 to $18.6 billion in 2004.

Gain (loss) on derivative instruments and hedging activities, net. Net gain on derivative instruments and hedging activities increased $4 million from a gain of $65 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to a gain of $69 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase is primarily the result of an increase in gains on interest rate agreements that do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, which increased from a gain of $57 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to a gain of $65 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. This was coupled with a decrease in gains on interest rate agreements, as a result of hedge ineffectiveness on designated hedges, which increased from $8 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Loss on debt to equity conversions. Loss on debt to equity conversions of $23 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 represents the loss recognized from privately negotiated exchanges of a total of $30 million principal amount of Charter’s 5.75% convertible senior notes held by two unrelated parties for shares of Charter Class A common stock. The exchange resulted in the issuance of more shares in the exchange transaction than would have been issuable under the original terms of the convertible senior notes.

Gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt. Loss on extinguishment of debt of $31 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 represents the write-off of deferred financing fees and third party costs related to the Charter Communications Operating refinancing in April 2004 and the redemption of our 5.75% convertible senior notes due 2005 in December 2004. Gain on extinguishment of debt of $267 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 represents the gain realized on the purchase of an aggregate $609 million principal amount of our outstanding convertible senior notes and $1.3 billion principal amount of Charter Holdings’ senior notes and senior discount notes in consideration for an aggregate of $1.6 billion principal amount of 10.25% notes due 2010 issued by our indirect subsidiary, CCH II. The gain is net of the write-off of deferred financing costs associated with the retired debt of $27 million.

Other, net. Net other expense decreased by $19 million from $16 million in 2003 to income of $3 million in 2004. Other expense in 2003 included $11 million associated with amending a revolving credit facility of our subsidiaries and costs associated with terminated debt transactions that did not recur in 2004. In addition, gains on equity investments increased $7 million in 2004 over 2003.

Minority interest. Minority interest represents the 2% accretion of the preferred membership interests in our indirect subsidiary, CC VIII, LLC, and since June 6, 2003, the pro rata share of the profits and losses of CC VIII, LLC. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions — Transactions Arising out of Our Organizational Structure and Mr. Allen’s Investment in Charter Communications, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries — Equity Put Rights — CC VIII.” Reported losses allocated to minority interest on the statement of operations are limited to the extent of any remaining minority interest on the balance sheet related to Charter Holdco. Because minority interest in Charter Holdco was substantially eliminated at December 31, 2003, beginning in the first quarter of 2004, Charter began to absorb substantially all future losses before income taxes that otherwise would have been allocated to minority interest. For the year ended December 31, 2003, 53.5% of our losses were allocated to minority interest. As a result of negative equity at Charter Holdco during the year ended December 31, 2004, no additional losses were

42

allocated to minority interest, resulting in an additional $2.4 billion of net losses. Under our existing capital structure, future losses will be substantially absorbed by Charter.

Income tax benefit. Income tax benefit of $103 million and $110 million was recognized for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The income tax benefits were realized as a result of decreases in certain deferred tax liabilities related to our investment in Charter Holdco as well as decreases in the deferred tax liabilities of certain of our indirect corporate subsidiaries.

The income tax benefit recognized in the year ended December 31, 2004 was directly related to the impairment of franchises as discussed above because the deferred tax liabilities decreased as a result of the write-down of franchise assets for financial statement purposes and not for tax purposes. We do not expect to recognize a similar benefit associated with the impairment of franchises in future periods. However, the actual tax provision calculations in future periods will be the result of current and future temporary differences, as well as future operating results.

The income tax benefit recognized in the year ended December 31, 2003 was directly related to the tax losses allocated to Charter from Charter Holdco. In the second quarter of 2003, Charter started receiving tax loss allocations from Charter Holdco. Previously, the tax losses had been allocated to Vulcan Cable III Inc. and Charter Investment, Inc. in accordance with the Special Loss Allocations provided under the Charter Holdco limited liability company agreement. We do not expect to recognize a similar benefit related to our investment in Charter Holdco after 2003 related to tax loss allocations received from Charter Holdco, due to limitations associated with our ability to offset future tax benefits against the remaining deferred tax liabilities. However, the actual tax provision calculations in future periods will be the result of current and future temporary differences, as well as future operating results.

Cumulative effect of accounting change, net of tax. Cumulative effect of accounting change of $765 million (net of minority interest effects of $19 million and tax effects of $91 million) in 2004 represents the impairment charge recorded as a result of our adoption of Topic D-108.

Net loss. Net loss increased by $4.1 billion from $238 million in 2003 to $4.3 billion in 2004 as a result of the factors described above. The impact to net loss in 2004 of the impairment of franchises, cumulative effect of accounting change and the reduction in losses allocated to minority interest was to increase net loss by approximately $5.3 billion. The impact to net loss in 2003 of the gain on the sale of systems, unfavorable contracts and settlements and gain on debt exchange, net of income tax impact, was to decrease net loss by $168 million.

Preferred stock dividends. On August 31, 2001, in connection with the Cable USA acquisition, Charter issued 505,664 shares (and on February 28, 2003 issued an additional 39,595 shares) of Series A Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock, on which it pays a quarterly cumulative cash dividend at an annual rate of 5.75% on a liquidation preference of $100 per share.

Loss per common share. The loss per common share increased by $13.65, from $0.82 per common share for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $14.47 per common share for the year ended December 31, 2004 as a result of the factors described above.

Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2002

Revenues. Revenues increased by $253 million, or 6%, from $4.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2002 to $4.8 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003. This increase is principally the result of an increase of 427,500 high-speed data customers, as well as price increases for video and high-speed data services, and is offset partially by a decrease of 147,500 and 10,900 in analog and digital video customers, respectively. Included within the decrease of analog and digital video customers and reducing the increase of high-speed data customers are 25,500 analog video customers, 12,500 digital video customers and 12,200 high-speed data customers sold in the Port Orchard, Washington sale on October 1, 2003.

Average monthly revenue per analog video customer increased from $56.91 for the year ended December 31, 2002 to $61.92 for the year ended December 31, 2003 primarily as a result of price increases and incremental revenues from advanced services. Average monthly revenue per analog video customer represents total annual revenue, divided by twelve, divided by the average number of analog video customers during the respective period.

43

Revenues by service offering are as follows (dollars in millions):