2

     Mediacom Broadband LLC was organized as a Delaware limited liability company in 2001 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation. Mediacom Broadband Corporation was organized as a Delaware corporation in 2001 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Broadband LLC. Mediacom Broadband Corporation was formed for the sole purpose of acting as co-issuer with Mediacom Broadband LLC of debt securities and does not conduct operations of its own.

     References in this Annual Report to “we,” “us,” or “our” are to Mediacom Broadband LLC and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, unless the context specifies or requires otherwise. References in this Annual Report to “MCC” are to Mediacom Communications Corporation.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

     You should carefully review the information contained in this Annual Report and in other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). In this Annual Report, we state our beliefs of future events and of our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify those so-called “forward-looking statements” by words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” or “continue” or the negative of those words and other comparable words. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those we anticipate. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: competition in our video, high-speed Internet access and phone businesses; our ability to achieve anticipated customer and revenue growth and to successfully introduce new products and services; increasing programming costs; changes in laws and regulations; our ability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet our debt service obligations and access to capital to maintain our financial flexibility; and the other risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report. Statements included in this Annual Report are based upon information known to us as of the date that this Annual Report is filed with the SEC, and we assume no obligation to update or alter our forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by applicable federal securities laws.

3

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Our Manager

     We are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation, who is also our manager. Mediacom Communications is the nation’s eighth largest cable television company based on customers served and the leading cable operator focused on serving the smaller cities and towns in the United States. As of December 31, 2005, our manager’s cable systems, which are owned and operated through our operating subsidiaries and those of Mediacom LLC, passed an estimated 2.81 million homes and served approximately 1.42 million basic subscribers and 2.42 million revenue generating units (“RGUs”). Mediacom LLC is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of our manager. A basic subscriber is a customer who subscribes to a package of cable television services. RGUs represent the sum of basic subscribers, digital customers and high-speed data (“HSD”) customers. Our manager is a publicly-owned company whose Class A common stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “MCCC”.

     Our manager’s principal executive offices are located at 100 Crystal Run Road, Middletown, New York 10941 and our manager’s telephone number at that address is (845) 695-2600. Our manager’s website is located at www.mediacomcc.com.

Mediacom Broadband LLC

     As of December 31, 2005, we served approximately 773,000 basic subscribers, 289,000 digital customers, 266,000 HSD customers, and 17,500 phone customers totaling 1.35 million RGUs. Through our interactive broadband network, we provides customers with a wide array of products and services, including analog and digital video services, advanced video services, such as video-on-demand (“VOD”), high-definition television (“HDTV”) and digital video recorders (“DVR”), HSD, also known as high-speed Internet access or cable modem service, and phone service.

     We have made available free of charge through our manager’s website (follow the Corporate Info link to the Investor Relations tab to “Annual Reports/SEC Filings”) our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after such material was electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information on our manager’s website is not part of this Annual Report.

Business Strategy

     We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing environment. Our strategy is to be the leading single-source provider of advanced video, data and voice products and services within our market areas, which will allow us to deepen relationships with our existing customers, attract new customers and further diversify our revenue streams. We believe that our interactive broadband network is the superior platform today for the delivery of these products and services within our service areas. We have a local presence, with facilities and employees in the communities where our customers live.

   Expanding Reach and Enhancing Quality of Products and Services

     We continue to expand the availability, and enhance the quality, of our advanced video services, such as VOD, which we refer to as Mediacom On Demand, HDTV and DVRs. Over the past two years, we have more than tripled the download speed of our HSD product, which we refer to as Mediacom Online. As of year-end 2005, and within six months of the initial launch of our phone service, which we refer to as Mediacom Phone, we were marketing this new product to over 80% of the homes in our markets.

4

     Bundling of Broadband Products and Services

     We believe that bundled products and services offer our customers the convenience of having a single provider contact for ordering, scheduling, provisioning, billing and customer care. Our customers can also realize greater value through bundle discounts as they obtain additional products and services from us. We currently offer the triple play bundle of video, voice and HSD to over 80% of the homes that we pass. By the end of 2006, we expect that we will be offering this multiple product bundle to approximately 1.46 million homes, or nearly all of our estimated total homes passed.

    Customer Service

     To enhance customers’ experience and realize operating efficiencies, we continue to invest in customer care personnel, call center technology and field workforce management. Attaining higher levels of customer satisfaction through quality service is critical to our success in the increasingly competitive environment we face today.

    Community Presence

     Since commencement of our operations in 1996, one of our key objectives was to bridge the “digital divide,” or technology gap, that had developed between the smaller cities and towns and the large urban markets in the United States. Today, the significant investments we have made in our cable systems have given the communities we serve access to the latest in broadband products and services. Moreover, we continue to build good relationships with our communities by providing local programming and by participating in a wide range of local educational and community service initiatives.

Products and Services

   Video

     We receive a majority of our revenues from video subscription services. Subscribers typically pay us on a monthly basis and generally may discontinue services at any time. We design our channel line-ups for each system according to demographics, programming preferences, channel capacity, competition, price sensitivity and local regulation. Monthly subscription rates and related charges vary according to the type of service selected and the type of equipment used by subscribers. Our video services include the following:

     Basic Service. Our basic service includes, for a monthly fee, local broadcast channels, network and independent stations, limited satellite-delivered programming, and local public, government, home-shopping and leased access channels.

     Expanded Basic Service. Our expanded basic service includes, for an additional monthly fee, various satellite-delivered channels such as CNN, MTV, USA Network, ESPN, Lifetime, Nickelodeon and TNT.

     Digital Cable Service. Customers who subscribe to our digital cable service receive up to 230 digital channels. We currently offer several programming packages that include digital basic channels, multichannel premium services, sports channels, digital music channels, an interactive on-screen program guide and VOD. Customers pay a monthly fee for digital cable service, which varies according to the level of service and the number of digital converters in the home. A digital converter or cable card is required to receive our digital cable service.

     Pay-Per-View Service. Our pay-per-view services allow customers to pay to view a single showing of a feature film, live sporting event, concert and other special event, on an unedited, commercial-free basis.

     Video-On-Demand. Mediacom On Demand provides on-demand access to approximately 1,300 hours of movies, special events and general interest titles. Our customers enjoy full functionality, including the ability to pause, rewind and fast forward selected programming. Mediacom On Demand service offers free special interest programming, subscription-based VOD (“SVOD”) premium packages, such as Starz!, Showtime or HBO, and movies and other programming that can be ordered on a pay-per-view basis. We currently offer this service to approximately 91% of our digital customers.

5

     High-Definition Television. HDTV features high-resolution picture quality, digital sound quality and a wide-screen, theater-like display. This service offers programming available in high-definition from local broadcast stations and from premium services such as Starz!, Showtime, HBO, ESPN, Discovery, HDNet, INHD and Universal. Our HDTV service is available in most of our markets where we offer up to 16 HDTV channels. This service requires the use of an advanced digital converter for which we charge a monthly fee.

     Digital Video Recorders. We provide our customers with HDTV-capable digital converters that have digital video recording capability. Using the interactive program guide, our customers with DVRs can record programming on the hard drive component of the digital converter and view the recorded programming using the play, pause, rewind and fast forward functions. The DVRs can also pause live television, and rewind or fast-forward it, as well as record one show while watching another, or record two shows simultaneously.

    Mediacom Online

     Mediacom Online offers several packages of HSD service with differing speeds and prices. These services include our interactive portal, which provides multiple e-mail addresses, personal webspace for customers, and local community content. We continue to enhance Mediacom Online by increasing its download speeds, including the introduction of a premier Internet service with maximum download speeds of 10Mbps.

     Through our network technology, we also provide a range of advanced data and communications services for the commercial market. We offer small and medium-sized businesses a wide range of high-speed data access products. Using our fiber-rich regional networks, we also build customized solutions for larger enterprise customers which may include local area and virtual private networks, and high-volume data transmission.

    Mediacom Phone

     Mediacom Phone offers our customers unlimited local, regional and long-distance calling within the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada, any time of the day or night, for a flat monthly rate. Discount pricing is available when Mediacom Phone is combined with our other services. International calling is also available at competitive rates. Mediacom Phone includes popular calling features, such as voice mail, caller ID name and number, call waiting and three-way calling, and provides enhanced Emergency 911 dialing. Our phone customers can keep their existing phone number where local number portability is supported and use existing phones, jacks, outlets and in-home wiring.

     In June 2005, we first launched Mediacom Phone in one of our smaller markets, and by year-end 2005, our phone service was marketed to approximately 1.2 million of our total estimated 1.46 million homes and served 17,500 customers. We expect to market Mediacom Phone to nearly all of our homes by year-end 2006.

     Mediacom Phone competes primarily with the phone service offered by the incumbent local telephone company. We use technology that carries a telephone conversation over a voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) network instead of the traditional telephone company’s circuit-switched dedicated voice transmission network. The advantages of VoIP over traditional circuit-switched telephony include: (i) lower costs because once the VoIP infrastructure is installed, little or no further investment is required; and (ii) the development of new advanced features.

    Advertising

     We generate revenues from the sale of advertising time on up to 44 satellite-delivered channels such as CNN, Lifetime, Discovery, ESPN, TBS and USA. We have an advertising sales infrastructure that includes in-house production facilities, production and administrative employees and a locally-based sales workforce. In many of our markets, we have entered into agreements with other cable operators to jointly sell local advertising, simplifying our prospective clients’ purchase of local advertising and expanding the reach of advertising they purchase. In some of these markets, we represent the advertising sales efforts of other cable operators; in other markets, other cable operators represent us. Additionally, national and regional interconnect agreements have been negotiated with other cable system operators to simplify the purchase of advertising time of our clients.

6

Description of Our Cable Systems

    Overview

     The following table provides an overview of selected operating and cable network data for our cable systems for the years ended:

7

Technology Overview

     A central feature of our cable network is its high capacity, hybrid fiber-optic coaxial (“HFC”) architecture. This architecture combines the use of fiber optic cable, which can carry hundreds of video, data and voice channels over extended distances, with coaxial cable for the “last mile,” which requires more extensive signal amplification to reach the desired levels for delivering channels. In most systems, we deliver our signals via fiber optic cable to individual nodes serving an average of 350 homes or commercial buildings. Coaxial cable is then connected from each node to the individual homes or buildings. Our network design generally provides for six strands of fiber to each node, with two strands active and four strands currently inactive. We believe that our HFC architecture provides high capacity and reliability, as well as providing reserve capacity for the addition of future services.

     As of December 31, 2005, substantially all of our cable network was built with greater than 550 megahertz (“MHz”) capacity, and all of it was two-way capable. MHz is a measure used to quantify bandwidth or the capacity to convey telecommunication services.

     We have deployed nearly 3,000 route miles of fiber optic cable into two regional fiber networks. As of December 31, 2005, our cable systems were operated from 19 headend facilities. In 2005, we installed SONET technology to our regional fiber networks to create full redundancy. SONET is a fiber-optic transmission system for high-speed digital traffic which uses a self-healing ring architecture to reroute traffic if a break in communications occurs. These regional networks also have excess fiber optic capacity to accommodate more capacity usage by our existing products and services and the launch of new products and services, such as our Mediacom Phone and commercial data for large enterprise customers. Our ability to reach a greater number of our markets from a central location also makes it more efficient, in terms of capital investment, to introduce new and advanced services. In 2005, we overlaid on our regional networks the first segments of a video transport system which permits us to more efficiently manage video services from fewer locations. This system will serve as the foundation for our planned launch of digital simulcast in 2006 and our ultimate transition to an all-digital network.

Programming Supply

     We have various fixed-term contracts to obtain, directly and indirectly, programming for our cable systems from programming suppliers whose compensation is typically based on a fixed monthly fee per customer. We negotiate programming contract renewals both directly and through a programming cooperative of which we are a member. Most of our contracts are secured directly due to the need to tailor contracts to our specific business concerns. We attempt to secure longer-term programming contracts which may include marketing support and incentives from programming suppliers.

     We expect our programming costs to remain our largest single expense item for the foreseeable future. In recent years, we have experienced a substantial increase in the cost of our programming, particularly sports programming, well in excess of the inflation rate or the change in the consumer price index. Our programming costs will continue to rise in the future due to increased costs to purchase programming and as we provide additional programming to our customers.

8

     We also have various retransmission consent arrangements with commercial broadcast stations, which generally expire in December 2008. In some cases, retransmission consents have been contingent upon our carriage of satellite delivered cable programming offered by companies affiliated with the stations’ owners or the broadcast network carried by such stations.

Customer Service

     Customer satisfaction is important in an increasingly competitive environment. We continue to invest in personnel, equipment and technology to improve our customer care. We benefit from a well-trained, locally-based technical workforce. We maintain a regional virtual contact center staffed with dedicated customer service representatives and technical support representatives (“TSRs”) who are available to respond to customer calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. TSRs respond to technical inquiries of our HSD and phone customers. We believe our regional contact center allows us to effectively manage resources and reduce response times to customer inquiries.

     In 2005, we further developed virtual contact center technology to provide customers with extensive self-service capabilities, such as making a payment and verifying service appointments, and to enable us to re-route customer calls among our contact centers to minimize hold times. We implemented a web-based customer service platform called e-Care for bill presentment purposes, and we are currently expanding our e-Care capabilities to include customer self-fulfillment.

Community Relations

     We are dedicated to fostering strong relations with the communities we serve. We support local charities and community causes in various ways, including events and campaigns to raise funds and supplies for persons in need and in-kind donations that include production services and free airtime on cable networks. We participate in the “Cable in the Classroom” program, which provides more than 1,300 schools with free video service and more than 200 schools with free high-speed Internet service. We also provide free cable television service to over 1,100 government buildings, libraries and not-for-profit hospitals in our franchise areas.

     We also develop and provide exclusive local programming to our communities, a service not offered by direct broadcast satellite providers, our primary competition in the video business. Several of our cable systems have production facilities to create local programming, which includes local school sports events, fund-raising telethons by local chapters of national charitable organizations, local concerts and other entertainment. In the Iowa communities we serve, the Mediacom Connections channel airs 60 to 70 hours of programming per week, including high school and college sporting events and statewide public affairs programs. We believe increasing our emphasis on local programming builds customer loyalty.

Franchises

     Cable systems are generally operated under non-exclusive franchises granted by local governmental authorities. These franchises typically contain many conditions, such as: time limitations on commencement and completion of construction; conditions of service, including number of channels, types of programming and the provision of free service to schools and other public institutions; and the maintenance or posting of insurance or indemnity bonds by the cable operator. Many of the provisions of local franchises are subject to federal regulation under the Communications Act of 1934, or Communications Act, as amended.

     As of December 31, 2005, we held 393 cable television franchises. These franchises provide for the payment of fees to the issuing authority. In most of the cable systems, such franchise fees are passed through directly to the customers. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, or 1984 Cable Act, prohibits franchising authorities from imposing franchise fees in excess of 5% of gross revenues from specified cable services and also permits the cable operator to seek renegotiation and modification of franchise requirements if warranted by changed circumstances.

9

     Substantially all of our cable systems require a franchise to operate. The table below groups the franchises of our cable systems by year of expiration and presents the approximate number and percentage of basic subscribers for each group as of December 31, 2005.

     We have never had a franchise revoked or failed to have a franchise renewed. In addition, substantially all of our franchises eligible for renewal have been renewed or extended prior to their stated expirations, and no franchise community has refused to consent to a franchise transfer to us. The 1984 Cable Act provides, among other things, for an orderly franchise renewal process in which franchise renewal will not be unreasonably withheld or, if renewal is denied and the franchising authority acquires ownership of the cable system or effects a transfer of the cable system to another person, the cable operator generally is entitled to the “fair market value” for the cable system covered by such franchise. In addition, the 1984 Cable Act established comprehensive renewal procedures, which require that an incumbent franchisee’s renewal application be assessed on its own merits and not as part of a comparative process with competing applications. We believe that we have satisfactory relationships with our franchising communities.

Competition

     We face intense competition from various communications and entertainment providers, many of whom have greater resources than us. We operate in an industry that is subject to rapid and significant changes and developments in the marketplace, in technology and in the regulatory and legislative environment. We are unable to predict the effects, if any, of such future changes or developments on our business.

Video

    Direct Broadcast Satellite Providers

     Direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, principally DIRECTV, Inc. and Echostar Communications Corporation, are the cable industry’s most significant video competitors, having grown their customer base rapidly over the past several years. They now serve more than 27 million customers nationwide, according to recent government and research reports. In 2003, the News Corporation Limited, one of the world’s largest media companies, acquired a controlling interest in DirecTV, strengthening this DBS provider’s competitive positioning.

     Our ability to compete with DBS service depends, in part, on the programming available to us and them for distribution. DirecTV and Echostar now offer more than 300 video channels of programming, much of it substantially similar to our video offerings. Federal laws passed in 1999 permit DBS providers to retransmit local broadcast channels to their customers, eliminating a significant advantage we had over DBS service. DirecTV also has exclusive arrangements with the National Football League to offer programming we cannot offer.

     In late 2005, DBS providers began to offer local high-definition (“HD”) broadcast signals of the four primary broadcast networks in certain major metropolitan markets across the U.S. They have stated their plans to expand this offering of local HD signals in markets representing up to 75% of U.S. TV households by year-end 2006. DirecTV has also stated that it will be able to provide significantly more HD channels of national programming in 2007.

     DBS service has technological limitations because of its limited two-way interactivity, restricting DBS providers’ ability to compete in interactive video, HSD and voice services. In contrast, our broadband network has full two-way interactivity, giving us a single platform that is capable of delivering true VOD and SVOD services, as well as HSD and phone services.

10

     DBS providers are seeking to expand their services to include, among other things, a competitive high-speed data service, and have active marketing agreements under which major telephone companies sell DBS service bundled with their phone and high-speed data services. However, we believe that our delivery of multiple services from a single broadband platform is more cost effective than the DBS providers, giving us a long-term competitive advantage. We also believe our subscribers continue to prefer our meaningful presence in their communities and the proprietary local content we produce and broadcast in several of our systems. DBS providers are not locally-based and do not have the ability to offer locally-produced programming.

    Traditional Overbuilds

     Cable television systems are operated under non-exclusive franchises granted by local authorities. More than one cable system may legally be built in the same area by another cable operator, a local utility or another service provider. Some of these competitors, such as municipally-owned entities, may be granted franchises on more favorable terms or conditions or enjoy other advantages such as exemptions from taxes or regulatory requirements to which we are subject. A number of cities have constructed their own cable systems, in a manner similar to city-provided utility services. In certain communities in Iowa, competition from municipally-owned entities may increase because of recently passed local legislation that allows these communities to form entities to compete with us. We believe that various entities are currently offering cable service to an estimated 15.9% of the estimated homes passed in our markets.

    Telephone Companies

     In addition to their joint-marketing alliances with DBS providers, Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. are now constructing, and Verizon is beginning to operate, new fiber networks that replace their existing networks and allow them to offer video services, in addition to improved voice and high speed data services. These telephone companies have substantial resources. Legislation was recently passed in three states, and similar legislation is pending, or has been proposed, in certain other states and in Congress, to allow local telephone companies to deliver services in competition with our cable service without obtaining equivalent local franchises. While the video competition we face from telephone companies is currently limited, if they decide to rebuild their networks in our markets and began to offer video services, they could present a significant competitive challenge to us.

    Other

     We also have other actual or potential video competitors, including broadcast television stations, private home dish earth stations, multichannel multipoint distribution services, known as MMDS (which deliver programming services over microwave channels licensed by the FCC), satellite master antenna television systems (which use technology similar to MMDS and generally serve condominiums, apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units), new services such as wireless local multipoint distribution service, and potentially new services, such as multichannel video distribution and data service. We currently have limited competition from these competitors.

    High Speed Data

     Our HSD service competes primarily with digital subscriber line (“DSL”) services offered by telephone companies. Many of these competitors have substantial resources.

     DSL technology provides Internet access at data transmission speeds greater than that of standard telephone line or “dial-up” modems, putting DSL service in direct competition with our cable modem service. As discussed above, certain major telephone companies are currently constructing and beginning to operate new fiber networks, allowing them to offer significantly faster high-speed data services compared to DSL technology. We expect the competitiveness of telephone companies to increase in high-speed data, as they respond to our entry into their phone business.

     DBS providers have attempted to compete with our HSD service, but their satellite-delivered service has had limited success given its technical constraints. DBS providers continue to explore other options for the provision of high-speed data services. Industry reports suggest that they will soon announce some form of affiliation with other companies to provide high-speed Internet access through a delivery system that combines satellite communications with terrestrial wireless networks.

11

     Other potential competitors include companies seeking to provide high-speed Internet services using wireless technologies. Certain electric utilities also have announced plans to deliver broadband services over their electrical distribution networks, and if they are able to do so, they could become formidable competitors given their resources.

    Phone

     Mediacom Phone principally competes with the phone services offered by incumbent telephone companies. The incumbent telephone companies have substantial capital and other resources, longstanding customer relationships, extensive existing facilities and network rights-of-way. In addition, it competes with services offered by other VoIP providers, such as Vonage, that do not have their own network but provide their service through a consumer’s high-speed Internet connection.

    Other Competition

     The FCC has adopted regulations and policies for the issuance of licenses for digital television (“DTV”) to incumbent television broadcast licensees. DTV television can deliver HD television pictures and multiple digital-quality program streams, as well as CD-quality audio programming and advanced digital services, such as data transfer or subscription video. Over-the-air DTV subscription service is now available in a few cities in the United States.

     The quality of real-time or streaming of video over the Internet and into homes and businesses continues to improve. These services are also becoming more available as the use of high speed Internet access becomes more widespread. In the future, it is possible that video streaming will compete with the video services offered by cable operators and other providers of video services. For instance, certain programming suppliers have begun to market their content directly to consumers through video streaming over the Internet, bypassing cable operators or DBS providers as video distributors, although the cable operators may remain as the providers of high-speed Internet access service.

Employees

     As of December 31, 2005, we employed 2,186 full-time employees and 37 part-time employees. Approximately 30 of our employees have organized but are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relations with our employees to be satisfactory.

Legislation and Regulation

General

     Federal, state and local laws regulate the development and operation of cable communications systems. In the following paragraphs, we summarize the federal laws and regulations materially affecting us and other cable operators. We also provide a brief description of certain relevant state and local laws. Currently few laws or regulations apply to Internet services. Existing federal, state and local laws and regulations and state and local franchise requirements are currently the subject of judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and administrative proceedings that could change, in varying degrees, the manner in which cable systems operate. Neither the outcome of these proceedings nor their impact upon the cable industry, our business or our operations can be predicted at this time.

Federal Regulation

     The principal federal statutes governing the cable industry, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992

12

and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (collectively, the “Cable Act”), establish the federal regulatory framework for the industry. The Cable Act allocates principal responsibility for enforcing the federal policies among the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and state and local governmental authorities.

     The Cable Act and the regulations and policies of the FCC affect significant aspects of our cable system operations, including:

     The FCC and some state regulatory agencies regularly conduct administrative proceedings to adopt or amend regulations implementing the statutory mandate of the Cable Act. At various times, interested parties to these administrative proceedings challenge the new or amended regulations and policies in the courts with varying levels of success. Further court actions and regulatory proceedings may occur that might affect the rights and obligations of various parties under the Cable Act. The results of these judicial and administrative proceedings may materially affect the cable industry and our business and operations.

Subscriber Rates

     The Cable Act and the FCC’s regulations and policies limit the ability of cable systems to raise rates for basic services and customer equipment. No other rates are subject to regulation. Federal law exempts cable systems from all rate regulation in communities that are subject to effective competition, as defined by federal law and where affirmatively declared by the FCC. 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 increases in DBS penetration and the announced plans of some local phone companies to offer comparable video service. Although the FCC is conducting a proceeding that may streamline the process for obtaining effective competition determinations, neither the outcome of this proceeding nor its impact upon the cable industry or our business or operations can be predicted at this time.

     Where there is no effective competition to the cable operator’s services, federal law gives local franchising authorities the ability to regulate the rates charged by the operator for:

     Local franchising authorities who wish to regulate basic service rates and related equipment rates must first affirmatively seek and obtain FCC certification to regulate by following a simplified FCC certification process and agreeing to follow established FCC rules and policies when regulating the cable operator’s rates. Currently, the majority of the communities we serve have not sought such certification to regulate our rates.

13

     Several years ago, the FCC adopted detailed rate regulations, guidelines and rate forms that a cable operator and the local franchising authority must use in connection with the regulation of basic service and equipment rates. The FCC adopted a benchmark methodology as the principal method of regulating rates. However, if this methodology produces unacceptable rates, the operator may also justify rates using either a detailed cost-of-service methodology or an add-on to the benchmark rate based on the additional capital cost and certain operating expenses resulting from qualifying upgrades to the cable plant. The Cable Act and FCC rules also allow franchising authorities to regulate equipment rates on the basis of actual cost plus a reasonable profit, as defined by the FCC.

     If the local franchising authority concludes that a cable operator’s rates exceed what is permitted under the FCC’s rate rules, the local franchising authority may require the cable operator to reduce rates and to refund overcharges to subscribers, with interest. The cable operator may appeal adverse local rate decisions to the FCC.

     The FCC’s regulations allow a cable operator to modify regulated rates on a quarterly or annual basis to account for changes in:

     The Cable Act and/or the FCC’s regulations also:

     Reversing the findings of a November 2004 report, the FCC released a report in February 2006 finding that consumers could benefit under certain a la carte models for delivery of video programming. This report did not specifically recommend or propose the adoption of any specific rules by the FCC and it did not endorse a pure a la carte model where subscribers could purchase specific channels without restriction. Instead, it favored tiers plus individual channels or smaller theme-based tiers. Shortly after release of the report, the FCC voted to seek additional information as to whether cable systems with at least 36 channels are available to at least 70 percent of U.S. homes and whether 70 percent of households served by those systems subscribe. If so, the FCC may have additional discretion under the Cable Act to promulgate additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources. The FCC did not specify what rules it would seek to promulgate; however, the Chairman of the FCC has expressed support for family-friendly tiers of programming and availability of programming on an a la carte basis. Certain cable operators have responded by announcing that they will launch “family-friendly” programming tiers. It is not certain whether those efforts will ultimately be regarded as a sufficient response. Congress may also consider legislation regarding programming packaging, bundling or a-la-carte delivery of programming. Any such requirements could fundamentally change the way in which we package and price our services. We cannot predict the outcome of any current or future FCC proceedings or legislation in this area, or the impact of such proceedings on our business at this time.

Content requirements

Must carry and retransmission consent

     The FCC’s regulations contain broadcast signal carriage requirements that allow local commercial television broadcast stations to elect once every three years whether to require a cable system:

14

     The Cable Act and the FCC’s regulations require a cable operator to devote up to one-third of its activated channel capacity for the carriage of local commercial television stations. The Cable Act and the FCC’s rules also give certain local non-commercial educational television stations mandatory carriage rights, but not the option to negotiate retransmission consent. Additionally, cable systems must obtain retransmission consent for carriage of:

     Under legislation enacted in 1999, Congress barred broadcasters from entering into exclusive retransmission consent agreements (through 2006) and required that broadcasters negotiate retransmission consent agreements in “good faith;” in 2004, Congress extended this “good faith” requirement to cover all multi-channel video programming distributors, including cable operators.

     Must-carry obligations may decrease the attractiveness of the cable operator’s overall programming offerings by including less popular programming on the channel line-up, while cable operators may need to provide some form of consideration to broadcasters to obtain retransmission consent to carry more popular programming. We carry both broadcast stations based on must-carry obligations and others that have granted retransmission consent.

     No later than February 18, 2009, all television broadcasts must be solely in digital format. After February 17, 2009, broadcasters must return their analog spectrum. The FCC has issued a decision that effectively requires mandatory carriage of local television stations that surrender their analog channel and broadcast only digital signals. These stations are entitled to request carriage in their choice of digital or converted analog format. Stations transmitting in both digital and analog formats (“Dual Format Broadcast Stations”), which is permitted during the transition period, have no carriage rights for the digital format during the transition unless and until they turn in their analog channel. The FCC has recently reaffirmed that cable operators are not required to carry the digital signal of Dual Format Broadcast Stations that currently have must-carry rights for their analog signals, however, changes in the composition of the Commission as well as proposals currently under consideration could result in an obligation to carry both the analog and digital version of local broadcast stations or to carry multiple digital program streams. In addition to rejecting a “dual carriage” requirement during the transition, the FCC also confirmed that a cable operator need only carry a broadcaster’s “primary video” service (rather than all of the digital “multi-cast” services), both during and after the transition. The adoption, by legislation or FCC regulation, of additional must-carry requirements would have a negative impact on us because it would reduce available channel capacity and thereby could require us to either discontinue other channels of programming or restrict our ability to carry new channels of programming or other services that may be more desirable to our customers.

     In the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (“SHVERA”), Congress directed the FCC to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to Congress regarding the impact on competition in the multichannel video programming distribution market of the Cable Act’s provisions and the FCC’s rules on retransmission consent, network-non-duplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts. The FCC completed this inquiry and submitted the required report to Congress in September 2005. While generally recommending that Congress continue its efforts to “harmonize” the rules applicable to cable, DBS and other multichannel video programming distributors to the extent feasible in light of technological differences, the FCC found that it was unnecessary to recommend any specific statutory amendments “at this time.” Rather, the FCC concluded that specific suggestions for change should await the results of a pair of companion studies to be conducted by the Copyright Office pursuant to SHVERA, the results of which are discussed below in the Copyright section.

15

    Tier Buy Through

     The Cable Act and the FCC’s regulations require our cable systems, other than those systems which are subject to effective competition, to permit subscribers to purchase video programming we offer on a per channel or a per program basis without the necessity of subscribing to any tier of service other than the basic service tier.

     The FCC is reviewing a complaint with respect to another cable operator to determine whether certain charges routinely assessed by many cable operators, including us, to obtain access to digital services, violate this “anti-buy-through” provision. Any decision that requires us to restructure or eliminate such charges would have an adverse effect on our business.

    Program Access

     To increase competition between cable operators and other video program distributors, the Cable Act and the FCC’s regulations:

    Other Programming

     Federal law actively regulates other aspects of our programming, involving such areas as:

     Use of Our Cable Systems by the Government and Unrelated Third Parties

     The Cable Act allows local franchising authorities and unrelated third parties to obtain access to a portion of our cable systems’ channel capacity for their own use. For example, the Cable Act:

     The FCC regulates various aspects of third party commercial use of channel capacity on our cable systems, including:

16

   Franchise Matters

     We have non-exclusive franchises in virtually every community in which we operate that authorize us to construct, operate and maintain our cable systems. Although franchising matters are normally regulated at the local level through a franchise agreement and/or a local ordinance, the Cable Act provides oversight and guidelines to govern our relationship with local franchising authorities.

     For example, the Cable Act and/or FCC regulations and determinations:

Provide guidelines for the exercise of local regulatory authority that:

Generally prohibit franchising authorities from:

Encourage competition with existing cable systems by:

Provide renewal procedures:

17

     The Cable Act and the FCC allow cable operators to pass franchise fees on to subscribers and to separately itemize them on subscriber bills. In 2003, an appellate court affirmed an FCC ruling that franchise fees paid by cable operators on non-subscriber related revenue (such as cable advertising revenue and home shopping commissions) may be passed through to subscribers and itemized on subscriber bills regardless of the source of the revenues on which they were assessed.

     In connection with its decision in 2002 classifying high-speed Internet services provided over a cable system as interstate information services, the FCC stated that revenues derived from cable operators’ Internet services should not be included in the revenue base from which franchise fees are calculated. Although the United States Supreme Court recently held that cable modem service was properly classified by the FCC as an “information service,” freeing it from regulation as a “telecommunications service,” it recognized that the FCC has jurisdiction to impose regulatory obligations on facilities based Internet Service Providers. The FCC has an ongoing rulemaking to determine whether to impose regulatory obligations on such providers, including us. Because of the FCC’s decision, we are no longer collecting and remitting franchise fees on our high-speed Internet service revenues. We are unable to predict the ultimate resolution of these matters but do not expect that any additional franchise fees we may be required to pay will be material to our business and operations.

   Ownership Limitations

     The FCC previously adopted nationwide limits on the number of subscribers under the control of a cable operator and on the number of channels which can be occupied on a cable system by video programming in which the cable operator has an interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the FCC’s decisions implementing these statutory provisions and remanded the case to the FCC for further proceedings.

     The 1996 amendments to the Cable Act eliminated the statutory prohibition on the common ownership, operation or control of a cable system and a television broadcast station in the same service area. The identical FCC regulation subsequently has been invalidated by a federal appellate court.

     The 1996 amendments to the Cable Act made far-reaching changes in the relationship between local telephone companies and cable service providers. These amendments:

18

     Pursuant to these changes in federal law, local telephone companies may now provide service as traditional cable operators with local franchises or they may opt to provide their programming over open video systems, subject to certain conditions, including, but not limited to, setting aside a portion of their channel capacity for use by unaffiliated program distributors on a non-discriminatory basis. Open video systems are exempt from certain regulatory obligations that currently apply to cable operators. The decision as to whether an operator of an open video system must obtain a local franchise is left to each community.

     The 1996 amendments to the Cable Act allow registered utility holding companies and subsidiaries to provide telecommunications services, including cable television, notwithstanding the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended. In 2004, the FCC adopted rules: (i) that affirmed the ability of electric service providers to provide broadband Internet access services over their distribution systems; and (ii) that seek to avoid interference with existing services. Electric utilities could be formidable competitors to cable system operators.

     Legislation was recently passed in three states and similar legislation is pending, or has been proposed, in certain other states and in Congress, to allow local telephone companies to deliver services in competition with our cable service without obtaining equivalent local franchises. Such a legislatively granted advantage to our competitors could adversely affect our business. The effect of such initiatives, if any, on our obligation to obtain local franchises in the future or on any of our existing franchises, many of which have years remaining in their terms, cannot be predicted.

     The Cable Act generally prohibits us from owning or operating a satellite master antenna television system or multichannel multipoint distribution system in any area where we provide franchised cable service and do not have effective competition, as defined by federal law. We may, however, acquire and operate a satellite master antenna television system in our existing franchise service areas if the programming and other services provided to the satellite master antenna television system subscribers are offered according to the terms and conditions of our local franchise agreement.

   Cable Equipment

     The Cable Act and FCC regulations seek to promote competition in the delivery of cable equipment by giving consumers the right to purchase set-top converters from third parties as long as the equipment does not harm the network, does not interfere with services purchased by other customers and is not used to receive unauthorized services. Over a multi-year phase-in period, the rules also require multichannel video programming distributors, other than direct broadcast satellite operators, to separate security from non-security functions in set-top converters to allow third party vendors to provide set-tops with basic converter functions. Beginning July 1, 2007, cable operators will be prohibited from leasing digital set-top terminals that integrate security and basic navigation functions.

     To promote compatibility of cable television systems and consumer electronics equipment, the FCC recently adopted rules implementing “plug and play” specifications for one-way digital televisions. The rules require cable operators to provide “CableCard” security modules and support for digital televisions equipped with built-in set-top functionality. The FCC continues to push the cable television and consumer electronics industries to develop two-way “plug and play” specifications.

   Pole Attachment Regulation

     The Cable Act requires certain public utilities, defined to include all local telephone companies and electric utilities, except those owned by municipalities and co-operatives, to provide cable operators and telecommunications

19

carriers with nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduit and rights-of-way at just and reasonable rates. This right to access is beneficial to us. Federal law also requires the FCC to regulate the rates, terms and conditions imposed by such public utilities for cable systems’ use of utility pole and conduit space unless state authorities have demonstrated to the FCC that they adequately regulate pole attachment rates, as is the case in certain states in which we operate. In the absence of state regulation, the FCC will regulate pole attachment rates, terms and conditions only in response to a formal complaint. The FCC adopted a new rate formula that became effective in 2001 which governs the maximum rate certain utilities may charge for attachments to their poles and conduit by companies providing telecommunications services, including cable operators.

     Increases in attachment rates due to the FCC’s new rate formula are phased in over a five-year period in equal annual increments, beginning in February 2001. This new formula will result in higher attachment rates than at present, but they will apply only to cable television systems which elect to offer telecommunications services. The FCC ruled that the provision of Internet services will not, in and of itself, trigger use of the new formula. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision and also held that the FCC’s authority to regulate rates for attachments to utility poles extended to attachments by cable operators and telecommunications carriers that are used to provide Internet service or for wireless telecommunications service. The recent Supreme Court decision upholding the FCC’s classification of cable modem service as an information service, should strengthen our ability to resist such rate increases based solely on the delivery of cable modem services over our cable systems. As we continue our deployment of cable telephony and certain other advanced services, utilities may continue to seek to invoke the higher rates.

     At present there is a formal hearing before the FCC in which Alabama Power is attempting to demonstrate that pole attachment rates above its marginal costs meet the just compensation test approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. As a result of the Supreme Court case upholding the FCC’s classification of cable modem service as an information service, the 11th Circuit has considered whether there are circumstances in which a utility can ask for and receive rates from cable operators over and above the rates set by FCC regulation. If successful, Alabama Power and perhaps all utilities in areas served by us may have a similar claim thereby increasing their ability to raise rates. It is not known at this time what, if any, financial impact could occur.

20

Other Regulatory Requirements of the Cable Act and the FCC

     The FCC has adopted cable inside wiring rules to provide a more specific procedure for the disposition of residential home wiring and internal building wiring that belongs to an incumbent cable operator that is forced by the building owner to terminate its cable services in a building with multiple dwelling units.

     The Cable Act and/or FCC rules include provisions, among others, regulating other parts of our cable operations, involving such areas as:

     The FCC may enforce its regulations through the imposition of fines, the issuance of cease and desist orders or the imposition of other administrative sanctions, such as the revocation of FCC licenses needed to operate transmission facilities often used in connection with cable operations. The FCC routinely conducts rulemaking proceedings that may change its existing rules or lead to new regulations. We are unable to predict the impact that any further FCC rule changes may have on our business and operations.

Copyright

     Our cable systems typically include in their channel line-ups local and distant television and radio broadcast signals, which are protected by the copyright laws. We generally do not obtain a license to use this programming directly from the owners of the programming, but instead comply with an alternative federal compulsory copyright licensing process. In exchange for filing certain reports and contributing a percentage of our revenues to a federal copyright royalty pool, we obtain blanket permission to retransmit the copyrighted material carried on these broadcast signals. The nature and amount of future copyright payments for broadcast signal carriage cannot be predicted at this time.

     In a report to Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office recommended major revisions to both the cable television and satellite compulsory licenses. In 1999, Congress modified the satellite compulsory license in a manner that permits DBS providers to become more competitive with cable operators. Congress recently adopted legislation extending this authority through 2009. The possible simplification, modification or elimination of the cable compulsory copyright license is the subject of continuing legislative review. The elimination or substantial modification of the cable compulsory license could adversely affect our ability to obtain suitable programming and could substantially increase the cost of programming that remains available for distribution to our subscribers. We are unable to predict the outcome of this legislative activity related to either the cable compulsory license or the right of direct broadcast satellite providers to deliver local broadcast signals.

     Filed petitions for rulemaking with the United States Copyright Office propose revisions to certain compulsory copyright license reporting requirements and seek clarification of certain issues relating to the application of the compulsory license to the carriage of digital broadcast stations. The petitions seek, among other things: (i) clarification of the inclusion in gross revenues of digital converter fees, additional set fees for digital service and revenue from required “buy throughs” to obtain digital service; (ii) reporting of “dual carriage” and multicast signals; (iii) revisions to the Copyright Office’s rules and Statement of Account forms, including increased detail regarding services, rates and subscribers, additional information regarding non-broadcast tiers of service, cable headend location information, community definition clarification and identification of the county in which the cable community is located and the effect of interest payments on potential liability for late filing; and (iv) payment for

21

certain distant signals in communities where the signal is not carried, dubbed “phantom signals.” The Copyright Office may open one or more rulemakings in response to these petitions. We cannot predict the outcome of any such rulemakings; however, it is possible that certain changes in the rules or copyright compulsory license fee computations could have an adverse affect on our business by increasing our copyright compulsory license fee costs or by causing us to reduce or discontinue carriage of certain broadcast signals that we currently carry on a discretionary basis.

     In February 2006, the Copyright Office reported to Congress as required by SHVERA. The Copyright Office concluded that: (i) the current DBS compulsory license royalty fee for distant signals did not reflect fair market value; (ii) copyright owners should have the right to audit the statements of account submitted by DBS providers; and (iii) the cost of administering the compulsory license system be paid by those using the copyrighted material. A second report is due by June 30, 2008. Neither the outcome of those proceedings, their impact on cable television operators, nor their impact on subsequent legislation, regulations, the cable industry, or our business and operations can be predicted at this time.

     Copyrighted material in programming supplied to cable television systems by pay cable networks and basic cable networks is licensed by the networks through private agreements with the copyright owners. These entities generally offer through to-the-viewer licenses to the cable networks that cover the retransmission of the cable networks’ programming by cable television systems to their customers.

     Our cable systems also utilize music in other programming and advertising that we provide to subscribers. The rights to use this music are controlled by various music performing rights organizations from which performance licenses must be obtained. Cable industry representatives negotiated standard license agreements with the largest music performing rights organizations covering locally originated programming, including advertising inserted by the cable operator in programming produced by other parties. These standard agreements require the payment of music license fees for earlier time periods, but such license fees have not had a significant impact on our business and operations.

Interactive Television

     The FCC has issued a Notice of Inquiry covering a wide range of issues relating to interactive television (“ITV”). Examples of ITV services are interactive electronic program guides and access to a graphic interface that provides supplementary information related to the video display. In the near term, cable systems are likely to be the platform of choice for the distribution of ITV services. The FCC posed a series of questions including the definition of ITV, the potential for discrimination by cable systems in favor of affiliated ITV providers, enforcement mechanisms, and the proper regulatory classification of ITV service.

Privacy

     The Cable Act imposes a number of restrictions on the manner in which cable television operators can collect, disclose and retain data about individual system customers and requires cable operators to take such actions as necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information. The statute also requires that the system operator periodically provide all customers with written information about its policies including the types of information collected; the use of such information; the nature, frequency and purpose of any disclosures; the period of retention; the times and places where a customer may have access to such information; the limitations placed on the cable operator by the Cable Act; and a customer’s enforcement rights. In the event that a cable television operator is found to have violated the customer privacy provisions of the Cable Act, it could be required to pay damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Certain of these Cable Act requirements have been modified by certain more recent federal laws. Other federal laws currently impact the circumstances and the manner in which we disclose certain customer information and future federal legislation may further impact our obligations. In addition, some states in which we operate have also enacted customer privacy statutes, including obligations to notify customers where certain customer information is accessed or believed to have been accessed without authorization. These state provisions are in some cases more restrictive than those in federal law.

Cable Modem Service

     There are currently few laws or regulations that specifically regulate communications or commerce over the Internet. Section 230 of the Communications Act declares it to be the policy of the United States to promote the

22

continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and interactive media, and to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation. One area in which Congress did attempt to regulate content over the Internet involved the dissemination of obscene or indecent materials.

     The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is intended to reduce the liability of online service providers for listing or linking to third-party Websites that include materials that infringe copyrights or other rights or if customers use the service to publish or disseminate infringing materials. The Children’s Online Protection Act and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act are intended to restrict the distribution of certain materials deemed harmful to children and impose additional restrictions on the ability of online services to collect user information from minors. In addition, the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act of 1998 requires online service providers to report evidence of violations of federal child pornography laws under certain circumstances.

     A number of ISPs have asked local authorities and the FCC to give them rights of access to cable systems’ broadband infrastructure so that they can deliver their services directly to cable systems’ customers, which is often called “open access”. The FCC, in connection with its review of the AOL-Time Warner merger, imposed, together with the Federal Trade Commission, limited multiple access and other requirements related to the merged company’s Internet and Instant Messaging platforms.

     In 2002, the FCC announced that it was classifying Internet access service provided through cable modems as an interstate information service. Although the United States Supreme Court recently held that cable modem service was properly classified by the FCC as an “information service,” freeing it from regulation as a “telecommunications service,” it recognized that the FCC has jurisdiction to impose regulatory obligations on facilities based Internet Service Providers. The FCC has an ongoing rulemaking to determine whether to impose regulatory obligations on such providers, including us. The adoption of new rules by the FCC could impose additional costs and regulatory burdens on us, reduce our anticipated revenues or increase our anticipated costs for this service, complicate the franchise renewal process, result in greater competition or otherwise adversely affect our business. While we cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, we do note that the FCC recently removed the requirement that telecommunications carriers provide access to competitors to resell their DSL Internet access service citing the need for competitive parity with cable modem service which has no similar access requirement. Any such requirements could adversely affect our results of operations.

Voice-Over-Internet Protocol Telephony

     The 1996 amendments to the Cable Act created a more favorable regulatory environment for cable operators to enter the phone business. Currently, numerous cable operators have commenced offering VoIP telephony as a competitive alternative to traditional circuit-switched telephone service. Various states, including states where we operate, have adopted or are considering differing regulatory treatment, ranging from minimal or no regulation to full-blown common carrier status. As part of the proceeding to determine any appropriate regulatory obligations for VoIP telephony, the FCC recently decided that alternative voice technologies, like certain types of VoIP telephony, should be regulated only at the federal level, rather than by individual states. Many implementation details remain unresolved, and there are substantial regulatory changes being considered that could either benefit or harm VoIP telephony as a business operation. While the final outcome of the FCC proceedings cannot be predicted, it is generally believed that the FCC favors a “light touch” regulatory approach for VoIP telephony, which might include preemption of certain state or local regulation. In February 2006, the FCC commenced a proceeding to determine whether additional security measures are required to protect certain customer information including call records. It is unknown what conclusions or actions the FCC may take or whether it will apply such requirements to all providers of voice services.

State and Local Regulation

     Our cable systems use local streets and rights-of-way. Consequently, we must comply with state and local regulation, which is typically imposed through the franchising process. Our cable systems generally are operated in accordance with non-exclusive franchises, permits or licenses granted by a municipality or other state or local government entity. Our franchises generally are granted for fixed terms and in many cases are terminable if we fail to comply with material provisions. The terms and conditions of our franchises vary materially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Each franchise generally contains provisions governing:

23

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risks Related to our Business

    We have a history of net losses.

     We have a history of net losses. Although we reported net income of $11.0 million, $34.9 million and $10.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 respectively, we reported a net loss of $27.2 million and $50.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2002 and for the period from April 5, 2001 through December 31, 2001, respectively. The principal reasons for our prior net losses include the depreciation and amortization expenses associated with our acquisitions and capital expenditures related to expanding and upgrading our cable systems, and interest costs on borrowed money.

    If we are unsuccessful in implementing our growth strategy, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

     We currently expect that a substantial portion of our future growth in revenues will come from the expansion of relatively new services, the introduction of additional new services, and, possibly, acquisitions. Relatively new services include HSD, VOD, DVRs, HDTV and phone service. We may not be able to successfully expand existing services due to unpredictable technical, operational or regulatory challenges. It is also possible that these services will not generate significant revenue growth.

     Our programming costs are increasing, and our business and results of operations will be adversely affected if we cannot pass through a sufficient part of the additional costs to video subscribers.

     In recent years, the cable and satellite video industries have experienced a rapid increase in the cost of programming, particularly sports programming. Increases in programming costs, our largest single expense item, are expected to continue, and we may not be able to pass on all of these cost increases to our video subscribers. In addition, as we add programming, we may not be able to pass on all of the costs of this additional programming without the potential loss of video subscribers. To the extent that we may not be able to pass on increased programming costs, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

     We also expect to be subject to increasing financial and other demands by broadcasters to obtain the required consents for the transmission of their programming to our subscribers. We cannot predict the impact of these negotiations on our business and results of operations or the effect on our subscribers should we be required to suspend the carriage of this programming.

24

     We operate in a highly competitive business environment, which affects our ability to attract and retain customers and can adversely affect our business and operations. We have lost a significant number of video subscribers to direct broadcast satellite competition, and further loss of video subscribers could have a material negative impact on our business.

     The industry in which we operate is highly competitive and is often subject to rapid and significant changes and developments in the marketplace and in the regulatory and legislative environment. In some instances, we compete against companies with fewer regulatory burdens, easier access to financing, greater resources and operating capabilities, greater brand name recognition and long-standing relationships with regulatory authorities and customers.

     Our video business faces competition primarily from DBS providers. The two largest DBS companies, DIRECTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications, are each among the four largest providers of multichannel video programming services based on reported customers. In addition, DIRECTV’s affiliation with News Corporation could strengthen that company’s competitive positioning, as News Corporation also owns Fox Television Network and several cable programming services. DBS has grown rapidly over the past several years and continues to do so. We have lost a significant number of video subscribers to DBS competition, and will continue to face significant challenges from DBS providers.

     Local telephone companies are capable of offering video and other services in competition with us and they may increasingly do so in the future. Certain telephone companies have begun to deploy fiber more extensively in their networks, and some have begun to deploy broadband services, including video services, and in certain cases avoiding the regulatory burdens imposed on us. These deployments enable them to provide enhanced video, telephone and Internet access services to consumers. New laws or regulations at the federal or state level may clarify, modify or enhance the ability of the local telephone companies to provide their services either without obtaining state or local cable franchises or to obtain such franchises under terms and conditions more favorable than those imposed on us. If local telephone companies are not required to obtain comparable local franchises, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

     Certain telephone companies, together with DBS providers, have launched bundled offerings of satellite delivered video service with phone, Internet and wireless service delivered by the telephone companies.

     We face growing competition from municipal entities that construct facilities and provide cable television, HSD, telephony and/or other related services. In addition to hard-wired facilities, some municipal entities are exploring building wireless networks to deliver these services. In Iowa, our largest market, an organization named Opportunity Iowa began in early 2004 to actively encourage Iowa municipalities to construct facilities that could be used to provide services that compete with the services we offer. Referenda were on the November 2005 ballot in thirty-two municipalities to authorize the formation of a communications utility, a prerequisite to funding and construction of facilities that may compete with ours. Referenda were successfully passed in seventeen of those communities. In many of the communities that passed a referendum, proponents and officials publicly stated that a second vote would be taken prior to any actual construction or funding of a competitive system, and only after a preliminary cost benefit analysis is undertaken. Other Iowa communities may also hold elections to authorize the creation of a telecommunications utility in their communities. Proponents or officials in those communities may not take the same approach with regard to a second vote before construction or funding or a cost-benefit analysis.

     We also face competition from over-the-air television and radio broadcasters and from other communications and entertainment media such as movie theaters, live entertainment and sports events, newspapers and home video products. Further losses of customers to DBS or other alternative video and HSD services could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

     Competition in our HSD business primarily comes from telephone companies and other providers of “dial-up” and DSL which already have telephone lines into the household. DSL service is competitive with HSD service over cable systems. In addition, certain DBS providers are currently offering two-way broadband data access services, which compete with our ability to offer bundled services to our customers.

25

     Our HSD business may also face competition in the future from registered utility holding companies and subsidiaries. In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted rules: (i) that affirmed the ability of electric service providers to provide broadband Internet access services over their distribution systems; and (ii) that seek to avoid interference with existing services. Electric utilities could be formidable competitors to us.

     Some of our competitors, including franchised, wireless or private cable operators, DBS providers and local exchange carriers, may benefit from permanent or temporary business combinations such as mergers, joint ventures and alliances and the potential repeal of certain ownership rules, either through access to financing, resources or efficiencies of scale, or the ability to provide multiple services in direct competition with us. Some of our present or future competitors may have greater financial resources or, through their affiliates, greater access to programming or other services, than we do.

     If we are unable to keep pace with technological change, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

     Our industry is characterized by rapid technological change and the introduction of new products and services. We cannot assure you that we will be able to fund the capital expenditures necessary to keep pace with future technological developments. We also cannot assure you that we will successfully anticipate the demand of our customers for products and services requiring new technology. This type of rapid technological change could adversely affect our ability to maintain, expand or upgrade our systems and respond to competitive pressures. An inability to keep pace with technological change and provide advanced services in a timely manner, or to anticipate the demands of the market place, could adversely affect our ability to compete and business, financial condition and results of operations.

     Our phone service was launched in 2005, and consequently, we face new risks and uncertainties as we began to scale this business.

     In June 2005, we launched Mediacom Phone in one of our smaller markets, and by year-end 2005, our phone service was marketed to approximately 1.2 million of our total estimated 1.46 million homes. We have limited operating experience with our phone service, and managing its growth may present significant challenges for us. We may encounter difficulties introducing Mediacom Phone in new markets or increasing the scale of markets already launched. If our phone service is not sufficiently reliable or we otherwise fail to meet customer expectations, our business could be adversely affected. We face intense competition in offering phone service, primarily from local telephone companies. We also depend on third parties for interconnection, call switching, and other related services to operate Mediacom Phone. As a result, the quality of our service may suffer if these third parties are not capable of handling their responsibilities. We also expect to see changes in technology, competition, and the regulatory and legislative environment that may affect our phone business. Consequently, we are unable to predict the effect that current or future developments in these areas might have on our phone business

     If our manager were to lose key personnel, our business would be adversely effected.

     If any of our manager’s key personnel ceases to participate in our business and operations, our profitability could suffer. Our success is substantially dependent upon the retention of, and the continued performance by, our manager’s key personnel, including Rocco B. Commisso, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of our manager. Our manager has not entered into a long-term employment agreement with Mr. Commisso. Neither our manager nor we currently maintain key man life insurance on Mr. Commisso or other key personnel.

     We depend on our manager for the provision of essential management functions.

     We do not have separate senior management and are dependent on our manager for the operation of our business. Our manager also manages Mediacom LLC’s operating subsidiaries. Following our acquisitions of the AT&T cable systems, the number of customers served by the cable systems managed by our manager increased significantly and our manager continues to devote a significant portion of its personnel and other resources to the management of Mediacom LLC’s cable systems. As a result, the attention of our manager’s senior executive officers

26

may be diverted from the management of our cable systems and the allocation of resources between our cable systems and Mediacom LLC’s cable systems could give rise to conflicts of interest.

     The successful execution of our business strategy depends on the ability of our manager to efficiently manage our cable systems. If our manager were to experience any material adverse change in its business, the risks described in this risk factor could intensify and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we are also dependent on our manager to operate Mediacom LLC’s cable systems effectively in order to enable us to achieve operating synergies, such as the joint purchasing of programming. Mediacom LLC’s operating subsidiaries have substantial indebtedness that, among other things, could make our manager more vulnerable to economic downturns and to adverse developments in its business. Although our manager charged management fees to our operating subsidiaries in an amount equal to 2.0% of our gross operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005, we cannot assure you that it will not exercise its right under its management agreements with our operating subsidiaries to increase the management fees, which under such agreements may not exceed 4.0% of each subsidiary’s gross operating revenues.

     The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of our manager has the ability to control all major decisions, and a sale of his stock in our manager could result in a change of control that would have unpredictable effects.

     Rocco B. Commisso, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of our manager, beneficially owned common stock of our manager representing approximately 76.4% of the combined voting power of all of its common stock as of December 31, 2005. As a result, Mr. Commisso generally has the ability to control the outcome of all matters requiring approval by stockholders of our manager, including the election of its entire board of directors, and Mr. Commisso may be deemed to control our company.

     We cannot assure you that Mr. Commisso will maintain all or any portion of his ownership in our manager or that he would continue as an officer or director of our manager if he sold a significant part of his stock. The disposition by Mr. Commisso of a sufficient number of his shares of our manager’s stock could result in a change in control of our manager and of us, and we cannot assure you that a change of control would not adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, a change of control (as defined in our bank credit facility) would result in a default under our bank credit facility.

     We may not be able to obtain critical items at a reasonable cost or when required, which could adversely affect business, financial condition and results of operations.

     We depend on third-party suppliers for equipment, software, services and other items that are critical for the operation of our cable systems and the provision of advanced services, including digital set-top converter boxes, digital video recorders and routers, fiber-optic cable, telephone circuits, software, the “backbone” telecommunications network for our high-speed data service and construction services for expansion and upgrades of our cable systems. In certain cases, these items are available from a limited number of suppliers. Demand for these items has increased with the general growth in demand for Internet and telecommunications services. We typically do not carry significant inventories of equipment. Moreover, if there are no suppliers that are able to provide set-top converter boxes that comply with evolving Internet and telecommunications standards or that are compatible with other equipment and software that we use, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. If we are unable to obtain critical equipment, software, communications or other services on a timely basis and at an acceptable cost, our ability to offer our products and services and roll out advanced services may be impaired, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

27

Risks Related to our Indebtedness and the Indebtedness of our Operating Subsidiaries

     We are a holding company with no operations and we depend on our operating subsidiaries for cash to fund our obligations.

     As a holding company, we do not have any operations or hold any assets other than our investments in and our advances to our operating subsidiaries. Consequently, our subsidiaries conduct all of our consolidated operations and own substantially all of our consolidated assets. The only source of cash we have to pay interest on, and repay the principal of, our indebtedness and to meet our other obligations is the cash that our subsidiaries generate from their operations and their borrowings. Our subsidiaries are not obligated to make funds available to us. Our subsidiaries’ ability to make payments to us will depend upon their operating results and will be subject to applicable laws and contractual restrictions, including the agreements governing our subsidiary credit facilities and other indebtedness. Those agreements permit our subsidiaries to distribute cash to us under certain circumstances, but only so long as there is no default under any of such agreements.

     We have substantial existing debt and have significant interest payment requirements, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain financing in the future and require our operating subsidiaries to apply a substantial portion of their cash flow to debt service.

     Our total debt as of December 31, 2005 was approximately $1.42 billion. Our interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2005 was $97.3 million. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flows to permit us, or our subsidiaries, to repay indebtedness or that refinancing of that indebtedness will be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

     This high level of debt and our debt service obligations could have material consequences, including that:

     A default under our indenture or our subsidiary credit facilities could result in an acceleration of our indebtedness and other material adverse effects.

     The agreements and instruments governing our own and our subsidiaries’ indebtedness contain numerous financial and operating covenants. The breach of any of these covenants could cause a default, which could result in the indebtedness becoming immediately due and payable. If this were to occur, we would be unable to adequately finance our operations. In addition, a default could result in a default or acceleration of our other indebtedness subject to cross-default provisions. If this occurs, we may not be able to pay our debts or borrow sufficient funds to refinance them. Even if new financing is available, it may not be on terms that are acceptable to us. The membership interests of our operating subsidiaries are pledged as collateral under our subsidiary credit facility. A default under one of our subsidiary credit facilities could result in a foreclosure by the lenders on the membership

28

interests pledged under that facility. Because we are dependent upon our operating subsidiaries for all of our revenues, a foreclosure would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

     The terms of our indebtedness could materially limit our financial and operating flexibility.

     Several of the covenants contained in the agreements and instruments governing our own and our subsidiaries’ indebtedness could materially limit our financial and operating flexibility by restricting, among other things, our ability and the ability of our operating subsidiaries to:

     Complying with these covenants could cause us to take actions that we otherwise would not take or cause us not to take actions that we otherwise would take.

     We may not be able to obtain additional capital to continue the development of our business.

     We have invested substantial capital for the upgrade, expansion and maintenance of our cable systems and the launch and expansion of new or additional products and services. While we have completed our planned system upgrades, if there is accelerated growth in our video, HSD and voice products and services, or we decide to introduce other new advanced products and services, or the cost to provide these products and services increases, we may need to make unplanned additional capital expenditures. We may not be able to obtain the funds necessary to finance additional capital requirements through internally generated funds, additional borrowings or other sources. If we are unable to obtain these funds, we would not be able to implement our business strategy and our results of operations would be adversely affected.

Risks Related to Legislative and Regulatory Matters

     Changes in cable television regulations could adversely impact our business.

     The cable television industry is subject to extensive legislation and regulation at the federal and local levels, and, in some instances, at the state level. Many aspects of such regulation are currently the subject of judicial and administrative proceedings and legislative and administrative proposals, and lobbying efforts by us and our competitors. We expect that court actions and regulatory proceedings will continue to refine our rights and obligations under applicable federal, state and local laws. The results of these judicial and administrative proceedings and legislative activities may materially affect our business operations.

     Local authorities grant us non-exclusive franchises that permit us to operate our cable systems. We renew or renegotiate these franchises from time to time. Local franchising authorities may demand concessions, or other commitments, as a condition to renewal, and these concessions or other commitments could be costly. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (“Communications Act”) contains renewal procedures and criteria designed to

29

protect incumbent franchisees against arbitrary denials of renewal, and although such Act requires the local franchising authorities to take into account the costs of meeting such concessions or commitments, there is no assurance that we will not be compelled to meet their demands in order to obtain renewals. We cannot predict whether any of the markets in which we operate will expand the regulation of our cable systems in the future or the impact that any such expanded regulation may have upon our business.

     Similarly, due to the increasing popularity and use of commercial online services and the Internet, certain aspects have become subject to regulation at the federal and state level such as collection of information online from children, disclosure of certain subscriber information to governmental agencies, commercial emails or “spam,” privacy, security and distribution of material in violation of copyrights. In addition to the possibility that additional federal laws and regulations may be adopted with respect to commercial online services and the Internet, several individual states have imposed such restrictions and others may also impose similar restrictions, potentially creating an intricate patchwork of laws and regulations. Future federal and/or state laws may cover such issues as privacy, access to some types of content by minors, pricing, encryption standards, consumer protection, electronic commerce, taxation of e-commerce, copyright infringement and other intellectual property matters. Recently, many states in which we operate have enacted laws requiring us to notify customers in the event that certain customer information is accessed or believed to have been accessed without authorization. The adoption of such laws or regulations in the future may decrease the growth of such services and the Internet, which could in turn decrease the demand for our cable modem service, increase our costs of providing such service or have other adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Such laws or regulations may also require disclosure of failures of our procedures or breaches to our system by third parties, which can increase the likelihood of claims against us by affected subscribers.

     Changes in channel carriage regulations could impose significant additional costs on us.

     Cable operators face significant regulation of their channel carriage. Currently, they can be required to devote substantial capacity to the carriage of programming that they might not carry voluntarily, including certain local broadcast signals, local public, educational and government access programming, and unaffiliated commercial leased access programming. If the FCC or Congress were to require cable systems to carry both the analog and digital versions of local broadcast signals or to carry multiple program streams included with a single digital broadcast transmission, this carriage burden would increase substantially. Recently, the FCC reaffirmed that cable operators need only carry one programming service of each television broadcaster to fulfill its must-carry obligation, however, changes in the composition of the FCC as well as proposals currently under consideration could result in an obligation to carry both the analog and digital version of local broadcast stations and/or to carry multiple digital program streams. Further, this decision has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Reversing the findings of a November 2004 report, the FCC released a report in February 2006, finding that consumers could benefit under certain a la carte models for delivery of video programming. The report did not specifically recommend or propose the adoption of any specific rules by the FCC and it did not endorse a pure a la carte model where subscribers could purchase specific channels without restriction. Instead, it favored tiers plus individual channels or smaller theme-based tiers. Shortly after release of the report, the FCC voted to seek additional information as to whether cable systems with at least 36 channels are available to at least 70 percent of U.S. Homes and whether 70 percent of households served by those systems subscribe. If so, the FCC may have discretion under the Cable Act to promulgate additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources. The FCC did not specify what rules it would seek to promulgate, however, the Chairman of the FCC has expressed support for family-friendly tiers of programming and availability of programming on an a la carte basis. Certain cable operators have responded by creating “family-friendly” programming tiers. It is not certain whether those efforts will ultimately be regarded as a sufficient response. Congress may also consider legislation regarding programming packaging, bundling or a-la-carte delivery of programming. Any such requirements could fundamentally change the way in which we package and price our services. We cannot predict the outcome of any current or future FCC proceedings or legislation in this area, or the impact of such proceedings on our business at this time.

     Recently, the FCC imposed “reciprocal” good faith retransmission consent negotiation obligations on cable operators and broadcasters. These rules identify seven types of conduct that would constitute “per se” violations of the new requirements. Thus, even though we may have no interest in carrying a particular broadcaster’s programming, we may be required under the new rules to engage in negotiations within the parameters of the FCC’s

30

rules. While noting that the parties in retransmission consent negotiations were now subject to a “heightened duty of negotiation,” the FCC emphasized that failure to ultimately reach an agreement is not a violation of the rules. The impact of these rules on our business cannot be determined at this time.

     Our franchises are non-exclusive and local franchising authorities may grant competing franchises in our markets, which could adversely affect our business.

     Our cable systems are operated under non-exclusive franchises granted by local franchising authorities. As a result, competing operators of cable systems and other potential competitors, such as municipal utility providers, may be granted franchises and may build cable systems in markets where we hold franchises. Some may not require local franchises at all, such as certain municipal utility providers. Any such competition could adversely affect our business. The existence of multiple cable systems in the same geographic area is generally referred to as an “overbuild.” As of December 31, 2005, approximately 15.9% of the estimated homes passed by our cable systems were overbuilt by other cable operators. We cannot assure you that competition from overbuilders will not develop in other markets that we now serve or will serve after any future acquisitions.

     Legislation was recently passed in three states and similar legislation is pending, or has been proposed in certain other states and in Congress, to allow local telephone companies to deliver services in competition with our cable service without obtaining equivalent local franchises. Such a legislatively granted advantage to our competitors could adversely affect our business. The effect of such initiatives, if any, on our obligation to obtain local franchises in the future or on any of our existing franchises, many of which have years remaining in their terms, cannot be predicted.

     The FCC recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether the current local franchising process constitutes an impediment to widespread issuance of franchises to competitive cable providers in terms of the sheer number of franchising authorities, the impact of state-level franchising authorities, the burdens some local franchising authorities seek to impose as conditions of granting franchises and whether state “level-playing field” statutes also create barriers to entry. We cannot determine the outcome of any potential new rules on our business; however, any change that would lessen the local franchising burdens and requirements imposed on our competitors relative to those that are or have been imposed on us could harm our business.

     Pending FCC and court proceedings could adversely affect our HSD service.

     The legal and regulatory status of providing high-speed Internet access service by cable television companies is uncertain. Although the United States Supreme Court recently held that cable modem service was properly classified by the FCC as an “information service,” freeing it from regulation as a “telecommunications service,” it recognized that the FCC has jurisdiction to impose regulatory obligations on facilities based Internet Service Providers. The FCC has an ongoing rulemaking to determine whether to impose regulatory obligations on such providers, including us. The FCC has issued a declaratory ruling that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service that is not subject to common carrier regulation. However, the FCC is still considering the following: whether to require cable companies to provide capacity on their systems to other entities to deliver high-speed Internet directly to customers, also known as open access; whether certain other regulatory requirements do or should apply to cable modem service; and whether and to what extent cable modem service should be subject to local franchise authorities’ regulatory requirements or franchise fees. The adoption of new rules by the FCC could place additional costs and regulatory burdens on us, reduce our anticipated revenues or increase our anticipated costs for this service, complicate the franchise renewal process, result in greater competition or otherwise adversely affect our business. While we cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, we do note that the FCC recently removed the requirement that telecommunications carriers provide access to competitors to resell their DSL Internet access service citing the need for competitive parity with cable modem service which has no similar access requirement.

     We may be subject to legal liability because of the acts of our HSD customers or because of our own negligence.

     Our HSD service enables individuals to access the Internet and to exchange information, generate content, conduct business and engage in various online activities on an international basis. The law relating to the liability of

31

providers of these online services for activities of their users is currently unsettled both within the United States and abroad. Potentially, third parties could seek to hold us liable for the actions and omissions of our cable modem service customers, such as defamation, negligence, copyright or trademark infringement, fraud or other theories based on the nature and content of information that our customers use our service to post, download or distribute. We also could be subject to similar claims based on the content of other Websites to which we provide links or third-party products, services or content that we may offer through our Internet service. Due to the global nature of the Web, it is possible that the governments of other states and foreign countries might attempt to regulate its transmissions or prosecute us for violations of their laws.

     It is also possible that information provided directly by us will contain errors or otherwise be negligently provided to users, resulting in third parties making claims against us. For example, we offer Web-based email services, which expose us to potential risks, such as liabilities or claims resulting from unsolicited email, lost or misdirected messages, illegal or fraudulent use of email, or interruptions or delays in email service. Additionally, we host website “portal pages” designed for use as a home page by, but not limited to, our HSD customers. These portal pages offer a wide variety of content from us and third parties which could contain errors or other material that could give rise to liability.

     To date, we have not been served notice that such a claim has been filed against us. However, in the future someone may serve such a claim on us in either a domestic or international jurisdiction and may succeed in imposing liability on us. Our defense of any such actions could be costly and involve significant distraction of our management and other resources. If we are held or threatened with significant liability, we may decide to take actions to reduce our exposure to this type of liability. This may require us to spend significant amounts of money for new equipment and may also require us to discontinue offering some features or our cable modem service.

     Since we launched our proprietary Mediacom Online service in February 2002, from time to time, we receive notices of claimed infringements by our cable modem service users. The owners of copyrights and trademarks have been increasingly active in seeking to prevent use of the Internet to violate their rights. In many cases, their claims of infringement are based on the acts of customers of an Internet service provider—for example, a customer’s use of an Internet service or the resources it provides to post, download or disseminate copyrighted music, movies, software or other content without the consent of the copyright owner or to seek to profit from the use of the goodwill associated with another person’s trademark. In some cases, copyright and trademark owners have sought to recover damages from the Internet service provider, as well as or instead of the customer. The law relating to the potential liability of Internet service providers in these circumstances is unsettled. In 1996, Congress adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is intended to grant ISPs protection against certain claims of copyright infringement resulting from the actions of customers, provided that the ISP complies with certain requirements. So far, Congress has not adopted similar protections for trademark infringement claims.

     We may be required to provide access to our networks to other Internet service providers, which could significantly increase our competition and adversely affect our ability to provide new products and services.

     Local authorities and the FCC have been asked to require cable operators to provide nondiscriminatory access over their cable systems to other Internet service providers. The recent decision by the United State Supreme Court upholding the FCC’s classification of cable modem service as an “information service” may effectively forestall efforts by competitors to obtain access to the networks of cable operators to provide Internet access services. As noted above, however, the FCC continues to have jurisdiction over this issue and a rulemaking initiated prior to the Supreme Court’s decision remains ongoing. While we cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, we do note that the FCC recently removed the requirement that telecommunications carriers provide access to competitors to resell their DSL internet access service citing the need for competitive parity with cable modem service which has no similar access requirement. If we are required to provide access in this manner, it could have a significant adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including by: (i) increasing competition; (ii) increasing the expenses we incur to maintain our systems; and/or (iii) increasing the expense of upgrading and/or expanding our systems.

32

     We may become subject to additional regulatory burdens when we offer cable telephony service.

     The regulatory treatment of VoIP services like those we and others offer remains uncertain. The FCC, Congress, the courts and the states continue to look at issues surrounding the provision of VoIP, including whether this service is properly classified as a telecommunications service or an information service. The FCC’s decision to classify VoIP as an information service should eliminate much if not all local regulation of the service and should limit federal regulation to consumer protection, as opposed to economic issues. For example, on the federal level, the FCC recently required providers of “interconnected” VoIP services, such as ours, to file a letter with the FCC certifying compliance with certain E-911 functionality. Disputes have also arisen with respect to the rights of VoIP providers and their telecommunications provider partners to obtain interconnection and other rights under the Act from incumbent telephone companies. We cannot predict how these issues will be resolved, but uncertainties in the existing law as it applies to VoIP or any determination that results in greater or different regulatory obligations than competing services would result in increased costs, reduce anticipated revenues and impede our ability to effectively compete or otherwise adversely affect our ability to successfully roll-out and conduct our telephony business.

     Actions by pole owners might subject us to significantly increased pole attachment costs.

     Our cable facilities are often attached to or use public utility poles, ducts or conduits. Historically, cable system attachments to public utility poles have been regulated at the federal or state level. Generally this regulation resulted in favorable pole attachment rates for cable operators. The FCC clarified that the provision of Internet access does not endanger a cable operator’s favorable pole rates; this approach ultimately was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. That ruling, coupled with the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the FCC’s classification of cable modem service as an information service, should strengthen our ability to resist such rate increases based solely on the delivery of cable modem services over our cable systems. As we continue our deployment of cable telephony and certain other advanced services, utilities may continue to invoke higher rates. A formal hearing is currently before the FCC in which Alabama Power is attempting to demonstrate that pole attachment rates above its marginal costs meet the just compensation test approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit which would allow it to ask for and receive rates from cable operators over and above the rates set by FCC regulation. If successful, Alabama Power and perhaps all utilities in areas served by us may have a similar claim thereby increasing their ability to raise rates.

     Our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer a material adverse impact from any significant increased costs, and such increased pole attachment costs could discourage system upgrades and the introduction of new products and services.

     Changes in compulsory copyright regulations might significantly increase our license fees.

     Filed petitions for rulemaking with the United States Copyright Office propose revisions to certain compulsory copyright license reporting requirements and seek clarification of certain issues relating to the application of the compulsory license to the carriage of digital broadcast stations. The petitions seek, among other things: (i) clarification of the inclusion in gross revenues of digital converter fees, additional set fees for digital service and revenue from required “buy throughs” to obtain digital service; (ii) reporting of “dual carriage” and multicast signals; (iii) revisions to the Copyright Office’s rules and Statement of Account forms, including increased detail regarding services, rates and subscribers, additional information regarding non-broadcast tiers of service, cable headend location information, community definition clarification and identification of the county in which the cable community is located and the effect of interest payments on potential liability for late filing; and (iv) payment for certain distant signals in communicates where the signal is not carried, dubbed “phantom signals.” The Copyright Office may open one or more rulemakings in response to these petitions. We cannot predict the outcome of any such rulemakings; however, it is possible that certain changes in the rules or copyright compulsory license fee computations could have an adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations by increasing our copyright compulsory license fee costs or by causing us to reduce or discontinue carriage of certain broadcast signals that we currently carry on a discretionary basis.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

33

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

     Our principal physical assets consist of cable television operating plant and equipment, including signal receiving, encoding and decoding devices, headend facilities and distribution systems and equipment at or near customers’ homes for each of the systems. The signal receiving apparatus typically includes a tower, antenna, ancillary electronic equipment and earth stations for reception of satellite signals. Headend facilities are located near the receiving devices. Our distribution system consists primarily of coaxial and fiber optic cables and related electronic equipment. Customer premise equipment consists of set-top devices and cable modems.

     Our cable television plant and related equipment generally are attached to utility poles under pole rental agreements with local public utilities, although in some areas the distribution cable is buried in underground ducts or trenches. The physical components of the cable systems require maintenance and periodic upgrading to improve system performance and capacity.

     We own and lease the real property housing our regional call centers, business offices and warehouses throughout our operating regions. Our headend facilities, signal reception sites and microwave facilities are located on owned and leased parcels of land, and we generally own the towers on which certain of our equipment is located. We own most of our service vehicles. We believe that our properties, both owned and leased, are in good condition and are suitable and adequate for our operations.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     We are involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, operations or cash flows.

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 fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS’ COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER
                PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

     There is no public trading market for our equity, all of which is held by MCC.

34

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

     We were organized for the purpose of acquiring cable systems from AT&T Broadband, LLC in 2001. In the table below, we provide you with:

(continued on next page)

35

36

37

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

     Reference is made to the “Risk Factors” below for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ from expectations and any of our forward-looking statements contained herein. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003.

Overview

     We are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation (“MCC”). Through our interactive broadband network, we provide our customers with a wide array of broadband products and services, including analog and digital video services, such as VOD, HDTV and DVRs, HSD and phone service. Where our phone service is available, we offer triple-play bundles of video, HSD and voice. Bundled products and services offer our customers a single provider contact for ordering, provisioning, billing and customer care.

     As of December 31, 2005, our cable systems passed an estimated 1.46 million homes and served 773,000 basic subscribers. We provide digital video services to 289,000 digital customers and HSD service to 266,000 customers, representing a digital penetration of 37.4% of our basic subscribers and a data penetration of 18.2% of our estimated homes passed respectively. We introduced phone service during the second quarter of 2005 and provided service to 17,500 customers as of December 31, 2005.

     We have faced increasing levels of competition for our video programming services over the past few years, mostly from DBS providers. Since they have been permitted to deliver local television broadcast signals beginning in 1999, DIRECTV, Inc. and Echostar Communications Corporation, the two largest DBS providers, have been increasing the number of markets in which they deliver these local television signals. These “local-into-local” launches have been the primary cause of our loss of basic subscribers in recent years. As of December 31, 2005, competitive local-into-local services in our markets covered an estimated 92% of our basic subscribers.

38

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2005 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2004

     The following table sets forth the consolidated statement of operations for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 (dollars in thousands and percentage changes that are not meaningful are marked NM):

39

     Video revenues represent monthly subscription fees charged to customers for our core cable television products and services (including basic, expanded basic and analog premium programming, digital cable television programming services, wire maintenance, equipment rental and services to commercial establishments), pay-per-view charges, installation and reconnection fees, late payment fees, and other ancillary revenues. Data revenues primarily represent monthly subscription fees charged to customers for our data products and services and equipment rental fees. Franchise fees charged to customers for payment to local franchising authorities are included in their corresponding revenue category.

     Revenues rose 4.8%, largely attributable to an increase in data revenues and video revenues. To strengthen our competitiveness, we increased our emphasis on product bundling and on enhancing and differentiating our video products and services with new digital packages, VOD, HDTV, DVRs and more local programming. During 2005, we also extended the discount periods of our promotional campaigns for digital and data services from three to six months to six and twelve months. This impacted the growth of our video and data revenues.

     Video revenues increased 1.8% as a result of higher fees from our advanced video products and services and the impact of basic rate increases, offset in part by a decline in basic subscribers. Our loss of basic subscribers decreased significantly during 2005, with a loss of 10,000, compared to a loss of 36,000 in 2004. The loss of basic subscribers resulted primarily from continuing competitive pressures by other video providers. The average monthly video revenue per basic subscriber increased 3.5% year over year. Digital customers increased 22.5% to 289,000 from 236,000 a year ago.

     Data revenues rose 22.9%, primarily due to the 29.8% year-over-year increase in data customers. Average monthly data revenue per data customer decreased 5.7% as a result of promotional offers during 2005.

     Advertising revenues decreased 2.6%, and reflected the anticipated decline in political advertising revenues compared to the 2004 election year.

     In June 2005, we launched Mediacom Phone in one of our smaller markets, and as of December 31, 2005, our phone service was marketed to 1.2 million of our total estimated 1.4 million homes and served 17,500 customers. We expect to market Mediacom Phone to nearly all our homes by year-end 2006.

  Costs and Expenses

     Service costs include: fees paid to programming suppliers; expenses related to wages and salaries of technical personnel who maintain our cable network and perform customer installation activities; broadband data access costs, including costs of bandwidth connectivity, customer provisioning and technical support and plant operating costs, such as utilities and pole rental expense. Programming costs, which are payments to programmers for content and are generally paid on a per subscriber basis, have historically increased due to both increases in the rates charged for existing programming services and the introduction of new programming services to our basic subscribers.

     Service costs increased 7.4%, primarily due to programming, plant operating and employee costs. The largest component of service costs is programming expense which increased 5.5%, as a result of reduced launch support from our programming suppliers in return for our carriage of their services, and higher unit costs charged by them, offset in part by a lower base of basic subscribers. Plant operating costs rose 22.9%, primarily due to greater use of outside contractors for customer installation activity and, to a lesser extent, higher vehicle fuel costs. Employee costs grew 5.2%, primarily as a result of increased headcount and overtime of our technical workforce for network phone readiness and customer installation activity, offset in part by higher labor and overhead capitalization. Service costs as a percentage of revenues were 39.0% for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared with 38.1% for the year ended December 31, 2004.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses include: wages and salaries for our call center, customer service and support and administrative personnel; franchise fees and taxes; and expenses related to billing, telecommunications, marketing, bad debt, advertising and office administration.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 6.6%, principally due higher employee, professional fees and office expenses, offset in part by a decrease in bad debt expense. Employee costs rose 8.2%, as a result of

40

increased direct sales personnel, sales commissions and costs associated with third-party call center contractors. Professional fees increased 49.6%, as a result of higher consulting expenses and other fees. This increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was partly offset by a 20.4% decrease in bad debt expense as a result of improved customer credit and collection policies and better collection experience in our advertising business. Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues were 22.5% for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared with 22.2% for the year ended December 31, 2004.

     We expect continued revenue growth in advanced services, which include digital video, HDTV, DVRs, HSD and phone service. As a result, we expect our service costs and selling, general and administrative expenses to increase.

     Management fee expense reflects charges incurred under our management arrangements with our parent, Mediacom Communications Corporation (“MCC”). Management fee expense increased 15.6%. As a percentage of revenues, management fee expense was 2.0% for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared with 1.8% for the year ended December 31, 2004.

     Depreciation and amortization increased primarily due to the retirement of assets and disposals.

    Interest Expense, net

     Interest expense, net, increased by 13.0%, primarily due to higher market interest rates on variable rate debt and the issuance of our 8 ¹/₂% Senior Notes in April 2005.

    Gain on Derivatives, net

     We enter into interest rate exchange agreements, or “interest rate swaps,” with counterparties to fix the interest rate on a portion of our variable rate debt to reduce the potential volatility in our interest expense that would otherwise result from changes in market interest rates. As of December 31, 2005 we had interest rate swaps with an aggregate principal amount of $400.0 million. The changes in their mark-to-market values are derived from changes in market interest rates, the decrease in their time to maturity and the creditworthiness of the counterparties. As a result of the quarterly mark-to-market valuation of these interest rate swaps, we recorded a gain on derivatives amounting to $6.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to a gain on derivatives of $10.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

    Other Expense

     Other expense was $6.5 million and $4.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Other expense primarily represents amortization of deferred financing costs and fees on unused credit commitments.

    Net Income

     As a result of the factors described above, we generated net income for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 of $11.0 million and $34.9 million, respectively.

41

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

     The following table sets forth the consolidated statement of operations for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands and percentage changes that are not meaningful are marked NM):

    Revenues

     The following table sets forth revenue, subscriber and monthly average revenue statistics for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (dollars in thousands, except per subscriber data):

     Revenues rose 5.9%, largely attributable to an increase in broadband data customers and basic rate increases applied on our video customers, driven in large part by our own video programming cost increases, offset by a 4.4% reduction in basic subscribers during the period.

     Video revenues rose 1.5% as a result of the aforementioned basic rate increases, substantially offset by a decline in basic subscribers. Digital customers increased 1.9% to 236,000 as compared to 231,600 a year ago. Our loss in basic subscribers resulted primarily from increased competitive pressures by DBS service providers, particularly in those markets where we experienced their local-into-local launches and, to a lesser extent, from our tighter customer credit policies. In an effort to reverse this video subscriber trend, we have been increasing our customer retention efforts and our emphasis on product bundling, enhancing and differentiating our video products and services with new digital packages, VOD, HDTV, DVR and more local programming.

     Data revenues rose 32.1%, due primarily to a 29.9% growth in data customers and an increased contribution from our relatively new commercial enterprise business.

     Advertising revenues increased 13.2%, primarily as a result of political advertising and stronger local advertising. Political advertising accounted for 82.6% of the growth.

Costs and Expenses

     Service costs grew 4.0%, primarily due to increases in employee and plant operating costs and programming expenses. Employee and plant operating costs rose 3.5%, primarily due to greater expensing of such operational costs resulting from the continued transition from upgrade construction in 2003 to maintenance activities in 2004, and higher operational insurance claims and employee benefits. Programming related expense, the largest component of service costs, rose 1.3%, as a result of rate increases on basic and premium services, significantly offset by a reduction in basic subscribers and an increase in launch support received from programmers in return for our carriage of their programming services. Service costs as a percentage of revenues were 38.1% for the year ended December 31, 2004, as compared with 38.8% for the year ended December 31, 2003.

     Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 7.9%, principally due to higher marketing, advertising and employee costs, taxes and fees, partially offset by a decrease in bad debt expense. Marketing costs rose 25.1%, as a result of mass media campaigns to support the rollout of new advanced services, and to promote customer retention and acquisition initiatives. Advertising costs grew 13.2%, primarily as a result of employee commissions on increased revenues. Employee costs increased 9.9%, as a result of higher employee compensation, benefit costs and customer service overtime, driven by greater activity related to the rollout of new products. Taxes and fees increased 5.1% due to higher state property taxes. This increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was partly offset by a 4.1% decrease in bad debt expense as a result of improved customer credit and collection policies. Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues were 22.2% for the year ended December 31, 2004, as compared with 21.8% for the year ended December 31, 2003.

     Management fee expense reflects charges incurred under our management arrangements with our parent, MCC. Management fee expense increased 13.5%. As a percentage of revenues, management fee expense was 1.8% for the year ended December 31, 2004, as compared with 1.7% for the year ended December 31, 2003.

     Depreciation and amortization decreased 4.8%, primarily due to changes, effective July 1, 2003, in the estimated useful lives of our cable systems and equipment in conjunction with the completion of our network upgrade and rebuild program, offset in part by increased depreciation for investments in our cable network and ongoing investments to continue the rollout of products and services including VOD, HDTV, DVRs and HSD.

    Interest Expense, net

     Interest expense, net, increased by 4.3%, primarily due to lower interest expense capitalization associated with the substantial reduction of upgrade/rebuild capital expenditures and slightly higher market interest rates on variable rate debt.

43

    Gain on Derivatives, net

     We enter into interest rate exchange agreements, or “interest rate swaps,” with counterparties to fix the interest rate on a portion of our variable rate debt to reduce the potential volatility in our interest expense that would otherwise result from changes in market interest rates. As of December 31, 2004 we had interest rate swaps with an aggregate principal amount of $500.0 million. The changes in their mark-to-market values are derived from changes in market interest rates, the decrease in their time to maturity and the creditworthiness of the counterparties. As a result of the quarterly mark-to-market valuation of these interest rate swaps, we recorded a gain on derivatives amounting to $10.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2004, as compared to a gain on derivatives of $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.

    Other Expense

     Other expense was $4.5 million and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Other expense primarily represents amortization of deferred financing costs and fees on unused credit commitments.

    Net Income

     As a result of the factors described above, we generated net income for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 of $34.9 million and $10.1 million, respectively.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     We have invested, and will continue to invest, in our network to enhance its reliability and capacity, and in the further deployment of advanced broadband services. Our capital spending has recently shifted away from network upgrade investments to the deployment of VOD, HDTV, DVRs, HSD and phone services. We also may continue to make strategic acquisitions of cable systems. We have a high level of indebtedness and incur significant amounts of interest expense each year. We believe that we will meet our debt service, capital spending and other requirements through a combination of our net cash flows from operating activities, borrowing availability under our bank credit facilities and our ability to secure future external financing.

     As of December 31, 2005, our total debt was $1.42 billion. Of this amount, $43.9 million matures within the twelve months ending December 31, 2006. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2005, we paid cash interest of $92.2 million.

Description of Our Credit Facilities

     Our operating subsidiaries have a $1.4 billion bank credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) expiring in 2014, of which $816.3 million was outstanding as of December 31, 2005. The Credit Facility consists of a revolving credit commitment (the “revolver”), a $300.0 million term loan (the “term loan A”) and a $500.0 million term loan (the “term loan B”). In October 2005, the Credit Facility was amended: (i) to increase the revolver portion from approximately $543.0 million to approximately $650.5 million, of which approximately $430.3 million is not subject to scheduled reductions prior to the termination date; and (ii) to extend the termination date of the commitments not subject to reductions from March 2010 to December 2012. As of December 31, 2005, we had unused credit commitments of $578.6 million under the Credit Facility, all of which could be borrowed and used for general corporate purposes based on the terms of our debt arrangements. During the year ended December 31, 2006, the maximum commitment amount; the portion of the Broadband revolver subject to reduction will be reduced by $30.4 million or 12.5% of the original amount; the term loan A will be reduced by $37.5 million or 12.5% of the original amount; and the term loan B will be reduced by $5.0 million 1.0% of the original amount.

     For all periods through December 31, 2005, we were in compliance with all of the covenants under our debt arrangements. Continued access to our credit facilities is subject to our remaining in compliance with the covenants of these credit facilities, including covenants tied to our operating performance. We believe that we will not have any difficulty in the foreseeable future complying with these covenants and that we will meet our current and long-term debt service, capital spending and other cash requirements through a combination of our net cash flows from

44

operating activities, borrowing availability under our bank credit facilities and our ability to secure future external financing. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain sufficient future financing, or, if we were able to do so, that the terms would be favorable to us. We expect that we will continue to be able to generate funds and obtain financing sufficient to service our long-term business plan, service our debt obligations and complete any future acquisitions if the opportunities arise.

     We have entered into interest rate exchange agreements, which expire from July 2006 through March 2007, to hedge $400.0 million of floating rate debt. Under the terms of all of our interest rate exchange agreements, we are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to the agreements. However, due to the high creditworthiness of our counterparties, which are major banking firms with investment grade ratings, we do not anticipate their nonperformance. As of December 31, 2005, about 70.7% of our outstanding indebtedness was at fixed interest rates or subject to interest rate protection and the average interest rate for borrowings under the revolving commitments of our credit facilities was LIBOR plus 1.50%.

     As of December 31, 2005, approximately $9.8 million of letters of credit were issued to various parties to secure our performance relating to insurance and franchise requirements.

     In January 2005, we borrowed $88.0 million from Mediacom LLC and repaid a portion of our indebtedness under our revolving credit commitments. The loan was funded with borrowings under Mediacom LLC’s bank credit facility. The loan is in the form of a demand note, which has a 6.7% annual interest rate, payable semi-annually in cash. We repaid this note and accrued interest in April 2005.

     Although we have not generated earnings sufficient to cover fixed charges in the past, we have generated cash and obtained financing sufficient to meet our short-term requirements, including our debt service, working capital and capital expenditures. We expect that we will continue to be able to generate funds and obtain financing sufficient to service our long-term business plan, service our debt obligations and complete any future acquisitions if the opportunities arise. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain sufficient financing, or, if we were able to do so, that the terms would be favorable to us.

    Operating Activities

     Net cash flows provided by operating activities were $105.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to $106.3 million for the prior year. The change of $1.3 million is primarily due to a net decrease in operating assets and liabilities, offset in part by an increase in cash paid for interest and higher operating income before depreciation and amortization.

     The change in operating assets and liabilities was lower by $7.8 million due to the timing of our cash payments and cash receipts. We made cash interest payments of $92.2 million and $86.4 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively. This increase was a result of higher interest rates on our variable rate debt. Operating income before depreciation and amortization rose $1.3 million, mainly from higher costs offset in part by an increase in revenues.

    Investing Activities

     Net cash flows used in investing activities were $108.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to $85.4 million for the prior year, and principally comprised capital expenditures. Capital expenditures increased $24.4 million to $108.1 million mainly due to greater levels of customer connection activities. Purchases of customer premise equipment, including greater quantities of higher cost HDTV and DVR set-tops, and installation costs, were the principal components of our capital investment related to customer connection activities.

    Financing Activities

     Net cash flows provided by financing activities was $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to cash flows used in financing activities of $21.1 million from the prior year. In 2005, our principal financing activities included the following:

45

Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments

     The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and commercial commitments, and the effect they are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flow, for the five years subsequent to December 31, 2005 and thereafter (dollars in thousands)*:

Critical Accounting Policies

     The preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Periodically, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to doubtful accounts, long-lived assets, capitalized costs and accruals. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe that the application of the critical accounting policies discussed below requires significant judgments and estimates on the part of management. For a summary of our accounting policies, see Note 2 of our consolidated financial statements.

    Property, Plant and Equipment

     We capitalize the costs of new construction and replacement of our cable transmission and distribution facilities and new cable service installations. Capitalized costs include all direct labor and materials as well as certain indirect costs. Capitalized costs are recorded as additions to property, plant and equipment and depreciate over the life of the related asset. We perform periodic evaluations of the estimates used to determine the amount of costs that are capitalized. Any changes to these estimates, which may be significant, are applied in the period in which the evaluations were completed.

46

    Indefinite-lived Intangibles

     Our cable systems operate under non-exclusive franchises granted by state and local governmental authorities for varying lengths of time. We acquired these cable franchises through acquisitions of cable systems and were accounted for using the purchase method of accounting. We have concluded that our cable franchise rights have an indefinite useful life since, among other things, there are no legal, regulatory, contractual, competitive, economic or other factors limiting the period over which these cable franchise rights contribute to our revenues. Accordingly, with our adoption of SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” we no longer amortize the cable franchise rights and other indefinite-lived assets. Instead, such assets are tested annually for impairment or more frequently if impairment indicators arise.

     Based on the guidance outlined in EITF No. 02-7, “Unit of Accounting for Testing Impairment of Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets,” we determined that the unit of accounting for testing franchise value for impairment resides at a cable system cluster level. Such level reflects the financial reporting level managed and reviewed by the corporate office (i.e., chief operating decision maker) as well as how we allocated capital resources and utilize the assets. Lastly, the unit reporting level reflects the level at which the purchase method of accounting for our acquisitions was originally recorded. We have one cable system cluster, or reporting unit, for the purpose of applying SFAS No. 142.

     We follow the provisions of SFAS No. 142 to test our goodwill and certain other intangible assets for impairment. We assess fair values primarily using discounted cash flow methodology.

     Goodwill impairment is determined using a two-step process. The first step compares the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired and the second step is unnecessary. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The second step compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill, calculated using the residual method, with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds the implied fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment loss.

     The impairment test for other intangible assets not subject to amortization consists of a comparison of the fair value of the intangible asset with its carrying value. If the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its fair value, the excess is recognized as an impairment loss.

     We completed our most recent impairment test as of October 1, 2005, which reflected no impairment of our franchise rights and goodwill. Our use of discounted cash flow analyses in determining the fair value of each cable system cluster involves certain assumptions and estimates, which are consistent with the expectations of buyers and sellers of cable systems in determining fair value. Significant impairment in value resulting in impairment charges may result if these estimates and assumptions used in the fair value determination change in the future. Such impairments could potentially be material.

    Derivatives

     We account for derivative instruments in accordance with SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” SFAS No. 138, “Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133,” and SFAS No. 149, “Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” Our primary objective for holding derivative financial instruments is to manage interest rate risk. Our derivative instruments are recorded at fair value and are included in other current assets, other assets and other liabilities. Our accounting policies for these instruments are based on whether they meet our criteria for designation as hedging transactions, which include the instrument’s effectiveness in risk reduction and, in most cases, a one-to-one matching of the derivative instrument to its underlying transaction. We have no derivative financial instruments designated as hedges. Gains and losses from changes in the mark-to-market values are currently recognized in the consolidated statement of operations. Short-term valuation changes

47

derived from changes in market interest rates, time to maturity and the creditworthiness of the counterparties may increase the volatility of earnings.

    Programming Costs

     We have various fixed-term carriage contracts to obtain programming for our cable systems from content suppliers whose compensation is generally based on a fixed monthly fee per customer. These programming contracts are subject to negotiated renewal. We recognize programming costs when we distribute the related programming. These programming costs are usually payable each month based on calculations performed by us and are subject to adjustments based on the results of periodic audits by the content suppliers. Historically, these audit adjustments have been immaterial to our total programming costs; however, there can be no assurance that such adjustments will be immaterial in the future.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, “Amendment of Statement 123 on Share-Based Payment.” SFAS No. 123R is supplemented by SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 107, “Share-Based Payment.” SAB No. 107 expresses the SEC staff’s views regarding the interaction between SFAS No. 123R and certain SEC rules and regulations including the valuation of share-based payment arrangements. SFAS No. 123R requires companies to expense the value of employee stock options, stock granted through the employee stock purchase program and similar awards. Pro forma disclosure is no longer an alternative. We will adopt SFAS No. 123R using the modified prospective method effective January 1, 2006. On the effective date of SFAS 123R, compensation costs will be recognized; (i) for all share-based payments granted after the effective date and; (ii) for all awards granted prior to the effective date that remain unvested. We expect that the adoption of SFAS No. 123R will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations and earnings per share.

     In March 2005, the FASB issued FIN 47 as an interpretation of SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” This interpretation clarifies that the term conditional asset retirement obligation as used in SFAS 143, refers to a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. The obligation to perform the asset retirement activity is unconditional even though uncertainty exists about the timing and/or method of settlement. Accordingly, an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. This interpretation also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN 47 is effective no later than the end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005. The adoption of this standard has not had a material impact on our financial position or results of operation.

     In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections,” which replaces APB Opinion No. 20, “Accounting Changes” and SFAS No. 3, “Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.” SFAS No. 154 is effective no later than the end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005 and requires retrospective application to prior period financial statements of voluntary changes in accounting principle, unless it is impractical to determine either the period-specific effects or the cumulative effect of the change. Our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows will only be impacted by SFAS No. 154 if it implements a voluntary change in accounting principle or correct accounting errors in future periods.

Inflation and Changing Prices

     Our systems’ costs and expenses are subject to inflation and price fluctuations. Such changes in costs and expenses can generally be passed through to subscribers. Programming costs have historically increased at rates in excess of inflation and are expected to continue to do so. We believe that under the FCC’s existing cable rate regulations we may increase rates for cable television services to more than cover any increases in programming. However, competitive conditions and other factors in the marketplace may limit our ability to increase our rates.

48

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

     In the normal course of business, we use interest rate exchange agreements (“interest rate swaps”) with counterparties to fix the interest rate on a portion of our variable interest rate debt. As of December 31, 2005, we had $400.0 million of interest rate swaps with various banks with a weighted average fixed rate of approximately 3.4%. The fixed rates of the interest rate swaps are offset against the applicable three-month London Interbank Offering Rate to determine the related interest expense. Under the terms of the interest rate exchange agreements, which expire from 2006 through 2007, we are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other parties. However, due to the high creditworthiness of our counterparties, which are major banking firms with investment grade ratings, we do not anticipate their nonperformance. At December 31, 2005, based on the mark-to-market valuation, we would have received approximately $5.2 million, including accrued interest, if we terminated these agreements. Our interest rate exchange agreements are scheduled to expire in the amounts of $250 million and $150 million during the years ended December 31, 2006, and 2007, respectively.

     The table below provides the expected maturity and estimated fair value of our debt as of December 31, 2005 (all dollars in thousands). See Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements.

49

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

MEDIACOM BROADBAND LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

50

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Member of Mediacom Broadband LLC:

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Mediacom Broadband LLC and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 15, 2006

51

MEDIACOM BROADBAND LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(All dollar amounts in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

52

MEDIACOM BROADBAND LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(All dollar amounts in thousands)