Good morning to those of you who are joining us on the web, and welcome to our conversation with Charter Communications and Chris Winfrey. Chris, good to have you back. I think we've had Charter every year at our conference, and you just about every time. Let's we have to start with the elephant in the room, which is your stock price fell 25% when you reported first quarter earnings, and has continued to fall even further since then. We attributed the drop not just to the year-over-year increase in broadband sub losses, but also to the discussion of, I don't wanna call it guidance precisely, but let's call it guidance, about broadband ARPU growth. In particular, the wording you used on the call with respect to broadband ARPU was that it'll be, quote, unquote, "Close to," or "Close either way in terms of where we end up with growth," meaning it's about flat. First, is your diagnosis of what the market's reaction to your earnings results were the same as mine, that it was not just the net adds, but people were surprised and concerned about the ARPU story, or is it something different? Yeah. I think the net adds variance wasn't big relative to consensus, and so clearly, you know, the market reaction was centered very much around, you know, broadband ARPU. On one hand, you know, disappointing to see that kind of market reaction significantly. I also don't think that more than a quarter of the value of the company was destroyed by, you know, an in-year ARPU, you know, outlook. I think more importantly, if you think about how we've always managed the business, we've never managed it for, you know, short-term ARPU, much less product ARPU, and it's not something that we've typically guided about. I think, you know, Jessica answered a question about it based on, you know, and she answered it honestly at the time. Clearly that had a pretty significant impact. We managed the business, as you know, fixed network of passings to try to derive the highest terminal penetration of customer relationships, the highest amount of products in the household, and as a result of that, having the highest revenue and margin at the household level. By doing that, you lower the operating cost per household, or per customer, and you lower the capital expense that's associated with that customer. We have the highest penetrations in the marketplace as a result of that strategy working well. Depending on how you allocate the revenue inside the bundle, you know, your single play product ARPU is gonna be all over the place from time to time, particularly as you're trying new things and going to market and you're, you know, pertaining inside the quarter. Yeah, I think in the end, I think that was, you know, clearly the market reaction. It was disappointing, but we're very much focused on customer lifetime value, maximizing penetration on the network and using all the tools and assets we have with, you know, other products to go drive value into the system. Part of the reaction I suspect though, was probably this tension between is this an intentional, we're doing this in order to achieve this outcome, or was that we just don't have the visibility right now to be able to say that we can grow ARPU and because I think those are two very different messages. Yeah. I look, again, I don't think it's a great metric to be giving guidance. What I will tell you is that converged ARPU is more relevant than a single product internet ARPU, and that is growing. You know, when it comes to broadband and you think about broadband, there's so many different things happening inside of a quarter, and we have a multi-product selling strategy. There's price locks that are taking place inside there. Inside of a quarter, we also have different levels of retention activity that's taking place, which we talked about a little bit on the call. Perhaps one of the bigger ones was that inside the first quarter, we didn't take the level of cost pass-through that we had done in previous periods inside of first quarter for, you know, a variety of different reasons. You know, we will do that towards the end of the summer, there'll be some of that cost pass-through. We're not just gonna take it and push it through. We're gonna do it attached to some value increase along the way. I think, you know, all those things drove, you know, a single play product ARPU output that wasn't representative of the long-term growth potential of the company. We focus much more on converged ARPU, and we think about manage the business from a customer lifetime value. I don't think it's productive or helpful to get in an environment where you're, you know, forecasting or guiding to single play product ARPUs. We'll get to all the details. Usually I wrap up with a question about the overall growth picture, but let's go to that first. Sure. Give investors, a reason for confidence that you can be back to being a sort of normalized levels of growth in revenue and EBITDA, and what are those normalized levels of growth? Sure. Look, let's start with what we know is we're operating in a, you know, highly competitive moment in time. Our issue hasn't been necessarily the level of competition because we compete very well against fiber, and we have for, you know, more than a decade. It's the level of new competition that's taking place in the market, combined with one of the lowest market move rates that we've seen, which reduces your selling opportunities. That's putting, you know, significant pressure on the short-term growth. In the end, if you step back and take a look and say, "Do you have the best network? Do you have the best products?" Do you have the best pricing and save customers money, and can you provide the best service? And the answer is yes to all that. You know, we are ubiquitously deployed, symmetrical soon, and multi-gig network converged. We have the fastest products in the marketplace, internet and mobile. The video product, you know, is not the most sexy thing today, it is the best product inside the marketplace. For those that are interested, together with mobile and our internet pricing, we can save customers hundreds and thousands of dollars every year. The service investment has already been made. Does that mean that, you know, we should sit back and do nothing? No, absolutely not. We have areas for opportunity or areas of improvement. The two biggest ones that I've talked about are go-to-market, finding a way to articulate that savings and quality to customers in a way that resonates and creates traffic. The second one is, you know, reaping the benefit of the investments in service that we've made. I mean, for example, if you call us today, probably half the time we're on your doorstep within two hours. Nobody can do that. 100% U.S.-based in-house sales and service, 24/7, a response rate that, you know, beats just about, it beats anybody. All that says, in the end, I think our products and our capabilities win, but, you know, we've got higher new competition along the way, and we've got opportunities that I think we can do better than we're doing today with our go-to-market and NPS. If none of that resonates, right, which I think it should, if none of that resonates, I still don't think you can ignore the free cash flow that exists today, the free cash flow takeoff that's coming from a rarely provided by us multi-year CapEx guidance, which we will deliver, and the free cash flow yield that that implies. You know, when you couple that with the fact that this infrastructure asset is unique, it's not something that can be replicated. The amount of traffic that we carry for ourselves, also for the entire rest of the industry as mobile offload is something that's very valuable, it can't be replicated. That's what I would say in terms of our ability to return to revenue and EBITDA growth, our free cash flow profile, and the underlying, you know, value that, you know, is our asset. There's a lot to unpack there, and we'll come back to some of those things. You prompted it first. I want to go back to just the sort of the competitive dynamics of the broadband market. We'll come back to convergence in a second. With respect to broadband, do you think of FWA as a product or a market segment? That is there a certain segment of the market that says, "Cheap and cheerful at 100 Mbps was all I was looking for anyway," and at $50, that's where they're gonna go? Or is there something about the product that says, "They're doing this in something different that we need to learn from"? I think that market has existed and, you know, we compete really well with it from a product set. I mean, we have an Internet Advantage product that's $30. We have low-income products that are much lower cost than that at similar speeds to what you're describing. Then you couple that with the ability to add mobile at a $30 per line as opposed to $60 or $70 per line, and I would say, yes, that market exists, but we've always served that market too. We don't heavily market it. We target market that, you know, to the right type of audience. I don't think there's anything that they're doing that's unique there other than representing it as a cheap product, when in fact the only way you can get that price is by overpaying significantly on your mobile service. That's the really the only way you get that price. selling convergence is the answer to compete. I think selling convergence is the answer to compete, you know, for us. Also being careful. We've created that marketplace almost single-handedly, making sure that we don't forego the opportunity to have an internet sale because we're trying to shove mobile down somebody's throat either. Even unattached to mobile or video, our internet product is better, it's faster, and it's very competitive on price. You know, those are the type of things that we're working through as well. There are things. You know, you asked about other things that, you know, FWA has done. You know, their installation setup is pretty easy. It's pretty straightforward. We took that as a challenge to go time the installation on FWA and time our own installation, and we were behind them, and we're now much faster than them. We put a lot of effort behind the NPS, you know, not because we're chasing a metric, but the customer perception is significantly impacted by, you know, the point of sale and the point of install, and we've gotten much, much better on that front. I do think competition makes you a better operator and we tear down everything that everybody's doing and try to learn from it, and if we need to mimic it, we will, but generally we want to try to beat it. You were the first person that described to me once, that your, what was then the Spectrum One free line offer was not a promotional plan, it was a new product category. That convergence and selling connectivity everywhere is about educating the customer to think differently about the bundle of comm services. How's that going? You know, you saw the early results in what it did for mobile. We've created the marketplace, I think, for convergence. Everybody's talking about it, and everybody's saying that they have it, and as you know, and you regularly point out, you know, there's only a small fraction of the network of Verizon or AT&T that'll ever be able to do convergence. As much as T-Mobile says they don't believe in convergence, they're doing it every day. They're just doing it on the back of the same network. The difference with us is that we have a fully deployed ubiquitous network that has wireline and wireless, so nobody else can provide it the way that we do. We already offload all that mobile traffic anyway. The only thing that we're doing is saying, "Look, we're already offloading your mobile traffic. We might as well have a service relationship with you, earn a great margin on it, and lower your cost as a consumer to provide more value to the holistic relationship that we provide inside the household. Convergence works. It's, you know, helpful for saving money, it's helpful for reducing churn. We are taking a look and making sure, you know, by creating the marketplace, if we lean so heavily that let's make sure we haven't created speed bumps to actual internet acquisition. No, I think if your question is does it work, it does. Everybody wants to have it whether they say it or not. If you think about the logical end game, if I'll ask the same question that I asked before about FWA. Is convergence a market segment or a product? That is there 20% of the market wants to buy their services that way and maybe that'll grow, but 80% is still single product, or is it just, "No, this is actually where the market is going over? Some of it depends on how you bill it into the household. At the end of the day, mobile today is an extension of our broadband service. You know, the dirty secret when you hear, you know, a lot of the telcos talking about the need for spectrum is, you know, 75%, 80% of their traffic goes over our network to begin with. So it is just the mobile product is just an extension of our broadband product, and I think we can save customers a lot of money with it. I don't know in terms of where people ultimately go, but I think inside of our footprint and, you know, with us, because we can uniquely provide it, I think it becomes more and more the way that people take it from us. You know my favorite topic is always the economics of fiber overbuilding and fiber deployment. Yes. When we were on this stage a year ago, you ventured that the capital being deployed in fiber was probably already earning a negative return. We're obviously seeing lower density- Right we're seeing lower ARPU, all of which would say it can't be getting better. Yeah. Yet we're expecting as many as 2 million or 3 million more passings this year than we saw last year if, for the next five years, if that's feasible. Is it? What do you think happens from here? I mean, you know this as well as I do. I think if you look back the past five years, the projection of what was gonna be built ended up being less than what was actually built. We're, in our footprint, that's all I can speak to, we're seeing a steady pace of build. I think it should be coming down because I don't think they're gonna make any money off of it. The number of fiber miles has to grow a lot. Yeah, no. The density is, you know, going down dramatically, and so the costs are going up, and it is more competitive because of, you know, us, because of FWA. I don't think there's a return there to begin with. I do think the amount of passings are, that are announced of what people want to do by definition is duplicative, and I think that's part of the reason that the forecast is always higher than what's being actually done in actuality, is because it, you know, it doesn't make sense to go there to begin with. It certainly doesn't make to go in there at the same time as another fiber overbuild. I think you'll see more and more of that. The thing that I think is interesting to watch for me is if you think about the existing fiber operators, there's been a lot of sales, a lot of the smart money is exiting or has already exited. I think that should tell you something because some of the people that were in it, they timed it right, they got out. I think there's something to be said for that. I was really interested in some data that OpenVault released in the fourth quarter of last year that showed that the average fiber customer is actually getting significantly slower speeds than the average cable customer. That's not because fiber is not capable of offering higher speeds. It's because people who are choosing fiber are opting into lower speed tiers, which would suggest that the real selling proposition for fiber isn't we're better, it's we're cheaper. Is that what you're seeing? At least in our footprint, that's not what we're seeing. If you look, we compete well against fiber at every single speed and price point, and we'll go where the customer wants to take us. In fact, our penetration of gig and multi-gig services today is only about 25%, so much lower than the number that you had. It was actually dramatically lower just two years ago, because we let customers You know, we'll advertise a gig, or we'll advertise two gig, and soon we'll be advertising five and more. Customers are solving for the speed they need and the price point they're looking for. We compete really well against all of that. The reason our gig plus speeds have taken off so much isn't because that's what we're putting in a single play environment. It's because of our bundling strategy, which says, "If you take video or if you take, you know, mobile lines with us, we'll kick in the gig for free, and, you know, we'll put that inside of your service as a way to create more value inside of that bundle." We're driving it in that way, but not from a competitive pricing or speed need. It's just about packing more value into the bundle. We do that at point of sale, we do that with migration, and we do that inside of retention. Yet it's still, for gig and multi-gig, it's still only 25% of our total footprint. We compete really well against fiber. We are, just as a reminder, inside of our footprint generally, when we compete against fiber, we're still the market share leader inside of our footprint. I don't think it's about speed selection or price. We compete well across both. One of the overarching themes of this conference has been the expected arrival of more competition from satellite in every part of the business of connectivity. What are you seeing with respect to Starlink and eventually Amazon LEO? Are they a direct competitor to existing subscribers? Are they just carving up the more rural and low density markets potentially before you get there? Talk about what you're seeing from satellite. I think in a low density rural environment, you know, particularly when there's not another alternative, it's a fantastic product. It works really well at low density. We have seen in some of our more recent rural builds, where we get in and Starlink has got a pretty good penetration in these rural environments, and we're having to, instead of be in the green field and, you know, welcome, we're having to convert those subscribers. We're still hitting our penetration targets in the most recent rural builds, but it's taking a little bit more time than it was early on. The big driver that I think probably is Starlink. In a rural low density environment, I think it works really well. In a suburban or urban environment, as you know, there's capacity constraints, although you can see how they price competitively in certain markets where they do have extra capacity. Do I think it'll be the competitive solution for those? No, but I also understand they are very well capitalized today and tomorrow. They're incredibly technologically savvy. They have a tremendous amount of governmental support, and we don't take that for granted, and so we're watching them very closely and try to keep a close eye and make sure we stay a step ahead of it. Does that do you think that satellite ultimately competes for the same segment as FWA, or are they layered competition that they each take their own share and the market gets smaller as a result? You know, I don't know that it segments out separately. You know, in the rural community, I think it's probably more of a substitution that exists because they both have capacity inside the environment. WISPs never get counted by most people. Correct. There's a lot of WISPs out there in rural. I think it's interchangeable in that environment. I think you're then coming down to the ease of an FWA installation versus putting a satellite dish on the outside of your home versus, you know, branding and things like that, versus the fiber provider, which is us, in these rural environments together with mobile that actually provides a better product, better price, saves you a lot of money. I think it's very much competitive in that environment. I don't think they're fishing in the same space as you get into suburban or urban. You know, we'll see. I'm not here to forecast their business other than tell you we're watching it very closely, and I think there may be more opportunities to cooperate with some of these providers than direct head-to-head competition. Okay, let's talk about Cox. Yep. First, just the logistics. California is the last hurdle remaining. You've reached settlements with Cal Advocates and CETF. Yep. Are there any substantial objections left? You've requested decision by August 13th. Is that the likely deadline? I mean, it's not obvious to me why it should take that long. Yeah. Well, look, as you mentioned, we've reached settlements with two of the key intervenors. All of the other states and the federal government were complete inside of March. This transaction brings significant benefits to consumers and to employees across the entire country. I would not underestimate the uncertainty that that creates for employees at both companies, but particularly Cox. We're hopeful that we can get out of there with California as quickly as possible. Beyond that, I'll just say that, you know, we very much respect the process. It's an important state to us. I'm gonna not say more about it just to respect the process that they and we have to go through. One of the benefits that you've obviously made the case to California about is that your pricing is lower. Yes You're gonna offer customers lower prices. Take us through the mechanics after the deal closes of how you roll out lower prices because I think there's a lot of anxiety about the fact that Cox's broadband ARPU, I know it's a stand-alone ARPU. Yeah broadband ARPU is just too high and it's gonna have to come down. Look, it's true. Their broadband ARPU is too high and it's gonna have to come down. I think the way that investors are gonna have to measure us is as follows. One is customer growth, two is PSU growth, and three is total customer ARPU. I said what I said up front just to, you know, be a little bit, provocative, but the total customer ARPU today is about the same, and they're way under-penetrated to us on video, and they have essentially no mobile penetration whatsoever. Our strategy here is going to be to have, lower pricing across all products, with better quality of product, and to have, a better customer ARPU at the household level. Most importantly is to have a higher penetration across the passings so that you can generate the most long-term terminal value of the network. Watch the customer, you know, watch the customer ARPU, watch the converged ARPU. First and foremost, watch subscriber growth, then customer ARPU. Converged ARPU, although that may take at least a year because of the free mobile line Spectrum One offer, so for that to kick in. The good news is there's a lot of history around that, so people know exactly how that's going to, you know, pan out, and there was doubts about that at the time, and it's proved out to be very good. I assume you'll be reporting those separately for. Just like we did with TWC and Bright House, we're gonna provide transparency, you know, everywhere we can. Capital and OpEx, you know, once you scramble the egg, it's hard to pull apart. Subscribers and, you know, revenue, certainly will be providing that type of insight to shareholders. It's important to see how the respective cohorts are developing along the way. The thing I wanna make clear, we're gonna grow. We're gonna grow Cox just because the video penetration is low, the mobile penetration is nonexistent, the quality of the products is better, and that is gonna contribute to internet. Yeah, there may be some single product ARPU volatility along the way, but we- They released some high-level financials for the third quarter of 2025. We haven't seen any sub counts since, I think, six months before that. Yeah. Have they started to do any of that on their own, in anticipation of changing their go-to-market strategy that in a way that we can't see? Not that I'm aware of. They're an independent company today, so I can't get in there and talk about, you know, explicitly their results or their financials without their explicit permission, so I won't. The facts haven't changed. Their subscriber losses are higher than exist at Spectrum, and their ARPU is higher, as you've already highlighted, and all of those things are, you know, the pieces that we're gonna go address head-on. I wanna be clear, This managing this transition isn't something new. We did this with, you know, Bresnan, we did it with Time Warner Cable, we did it with Bright House, and we've actually over the past year and a half, we've done it to ourselves with the Spectrum pricing and packaging rollout that we did in, whatever, September, October 2024, in a way that you as investors really didn't notice, you know, that amount of total ARPU change, but it accelerated growth, you know, for TWC, Bright House, and Bresnan and, you know, the goal is to go do the same on Cox. You've hinted or maybe teased, I suppose, that video attach rate is so low at Charter that it's not I mean at Cox. Yeah that it's not unreasonable to imagine that you actually get nominal growth in video out of Cox. Is that still your expectation? It's a forward-looking statement. I'll use one. We will grow video. It's hard to, gonna come off the floor. I don't mean that as an insult to Cox. They didn't have the economics and they didn't have the scale. That's the whole reason that we're doing this transaction. Actually very different from the current Spectrum markets. When you think about the video product that we're gonna roll out, and the same applies to mobile, when we rolled out Spectrum TV app inside of Spectrum's footprint and the Xumo box and the Seamless Entertainment and the activation of the apps, they all, you know, came out really good, but they needed significant improvement along the way to actually be really honed in and to work and to, you know, hang together. In the Cox markets, we'll launch a Spectrum, a brand-new name that people don't know, but it's a new competitor in the marketplace with a Spectrum TV app, with Xumo, with Seamless Entertainment, all that works at its peak capabilities today. The customers aren't gonna have to endure some of the, you know, improvements that we've made along to those products because they already exist. We're gonna come out with a, I think, a really good reception from a fantastic product on video and attach it for. It's not for everybody. For those who can afford that product because of where the programmers have been, it's gonna be great. We're gonna grow video. The mobile product, similarly, it's at a higher quality level through the Verizon agreement that we have. You know, not gonna say much about their contract or economics, but we have good margins on what we deliver. As a result of all that, we're gonna market it very aggressively as part of our Spectrum One play. I was always struck by on the video side that when we did see the financials, their video ARPU was really high again. Yeah. Their video margins were really low, which tells you their costs were just much less attractive than yours. Is that a big driver? You took the run rate operating expense synergies up to $800 million from $5 million that you had originally said. I imagine video is a piece of that. It's a piece of it, but because the penetration's so low, it's not as much as you might think. Really, as we started to look at how the two organizations come together, the locations of different groups and facilities, and most importantly, the non-programming- procurement opportunities that exist, that was really the drivers for the increase. I think there's more. We're being intentionally careful about how we articulate until we know the timeline and the scope. But there's, I think, more goodness that's gonna come. What are the big upside opportunities? I think they're all, you know, call it 20, 30 different items. Most of it centers around procurement, as we get in and find things that are either being duplicated or better rates. A good example would be B2B circuits. That one hasn't been fully priced in yet. I don't know how big it'll be, but it's just a good example of areas where we know that there's gonna be, you know, significant overlap and expenditure that can be, you know, reduced. Let's go back to wireless and wireless convergence for a second. Zoom out. You just passed 12 million lines. You, you once, you talked about this kind of converged product. I was saying to Steve Croney from Comcast in the last session, based on what we might guess your churn rate is, your share of gross adds in the wireless market is now close to 20% of the market. Your market share is still single digits. What do you think the long-term runway is for wireless and your sort of fair share of the wireless market? I don't think there's a specific target that we have in mind other than why wouldn't it be every single cable relationship that we have? The reason I say that is because the product is faster. It actually works better because of Seamless Connectivity and it is a much lower price point. You give a product that gets speed boost to a gigabit everywhere it connects to our network. It has Seamless Connectivity. It's the fastest mobile service, and it's the lowest cost you know, for that type of quality in the marketplace by a mile. Why wouldn't every single customer that we have take multiple lines, you know, of this product? I think it should be for everybody. There's friction in the marketplace, and there's things that others do, and that takes a long time to make happen. Economically, there's no reason it shouldn't be everybody. I don't know that I wanna put an artificial target out there in terms of where we can go. Just based on your attach rates, and the number of subscribers you have, it's pretty clear you have fewer lines per account than your competitors do. Correct. What's the strategy for bringing whole families over and getting the line count up. When you think about the way that Spectrum One worked early on, really was about that free mobile line to get you started. After we convinced you that even after a year it's at $30, the product works better than anybody else's in the marketplace, it's a faster product, you gain the confidence from the customer to convert over additional lines. We have a heavy program in place that we go back to customers and try to get them to, you know, up the number of lines in the household. Over time, as the brand reputation's improved and the word of mouth exists and customers' experience with the product gets better, you know, that's moved up, as you can see in the numbers. We still have a long way to go, not just on penetration per household, which is now penetration to internet is just over 20%. In addition to that, instead of being two lines per household, if the national average is, what, three? You know. Above 2.5 Anyway. Right. Let's call it, you know, above 2.5. There's huge headroom on both the penetration of internet and the lines per household that we can go get. You see us doing that with pricing and packaging and trying to identify when another phone inside the household is up for an EIP renewal, for example. That's the friction that exists, is you can have a household that has multiple lines in place, that has multiple, you know, EIPs on cascading timelines, so you've got to dig each one of these out at a different point in time, and that's what we do. Can you update us on your wireless offload? You've taken your number of wireless access points. It's really, it's sort of doubled from 2022 to today. Some of it with the dual SSID modems. Yes That sort of thing. Talk about where wireless offload is and where it can eventually get to. Yeah. It's 88%, 89% today. I don't remember where we started. It was around 85. 85%. Yeah, something like that. Yeah. We now have about 65% of our internet customers. Which by the way, that doesn't sound like a lot. That's about a 30% reduction in what you're sending out to. Yeah We're only at 65% of our internet customers who have the advanced Wi-Fi that's capable of the dual SSID. Just for those who don't know, if you're, you know, as a Spectrum Mobile customer, if I walk around the neighborhood here, I'm probably not gonna be on the Verizon 5G signal. I'm probably gonna be on Spectrum Mobile signal due to somebody else's dual SSID, and chances are I'm getting boosted to a gigabit per second. That, you know, provides not just cost savings to us, but it provides a better quality service. The software dictates which is gonna be the better connection that they get, so we don't do it at the sacrifice of quality. If we got to 65% of our internet customers that have that advanced Wi-Fi capability, and that's got us to 88%- 89%, you know, how much further? There's probably a couple of points left that we can do just on Wi-Fi. As you know, we're rolling out CBRS to really push even harder. We're always gonna need access to the 5G network. Think about, you know, the most obvious examples. You're driving up and down I-95, you know, watching Peacock. Hopefully, that's a passenger and not the driver. Give it time. Yeah, I agree. In the Tesla, you know, it matters. That's, you know, that's the environment. It doesn't make any sense for us to go invest in macro cell towers. That's the beauty of the strategic relationship we have with Verizon on residential and T-Mobile on B2B, of the ability to piggyback there and provide that service. All right. Let's jump to the topic that's on every Charter investor's mind, that is, I get constantly the, "Okay, I know you're gonna reduce your leverage ratio a little bit for the Cox deal, but is it time to reduce it more?" The tension between, "But your stock price is so low- Yes you could lean into buying it back. How are you thinking about it right now, and what's your North Star in terms of leverage? Look, I think there's multiple ways to look at it. Thankfully, the deal we did with Cox kinda solves a lot of that and takes the debate off the table. First, I would tell you that from a personal perspective, you can see what a bunch of board members did when the stock price sold off the way that it did, not just this time, but, you know, even last year, and, you know, voted with their feet or voted with their wallet, so to speak. The natural personal tendency is to be aggressive and to lean in. The countervailing thoughts to that are, you know, really twofold. One is, we have an investment grade structure that we're gonna protect, and it's very important to us that we maintain the IG status. We're not gonna do anything that, you know, runs the risk of priming other investors along the way. We've got to balance that. The third piece to that is there is a technical argument that because of where the enterprise value is, that the thin layer of equity trading value is actually working against us and creating volatility in a way that's not helpful to any of us as shareholders. That would, you know, versus what I said at the beginning, offer the alternative approach is, no, you gotta create temporarily, you gotta create a little more headroom here, so you take out the volatility and you don't make yourself a target along the way. By the way, when it's that thin layer- From a short term- buying back, paying down debt looks an awful lot like buying back equity. We could get into a whole corporate finance debate around that, but yeah, I understand what you're saying. The good news is that because the Cox deal is deleveraging right out of the gate, so we're gonna automatically deleverage at the point of close. We're gonna have a boatload of, you know, synergies to benefit from. We're going to get growth inside that footprint. We've committed to over a three-year period to, you know, bring that into the 3.5 range. Not there's, is there a conversation about no, maybe given the competitive environment it ought to be three or below? Our confidence in our ability to grow and the free cash flow that we throw off says that at this point in time, there's no reason to, you know, really think about that and have that conversation. We don't have our head in the sand, you know, we'll go do the right thing at all times. The good news for everybody to know is that we're incentivized as much as you can be with the success of shareholders, we have our head on straight, that's not a topic of conversation for us today, I don't think it needs to be. You've got Nick Jeffery joining, in I think it's September, if I'm not mistaken. Yep, September 1st. He obviously brings a tremendous amount to the table. What do you think his role is going to be and what are you gonna have him focus on when he gets started? thrilled with the hiring of Nick. It's a, you know, first for us to really go from the outside, and that's because we've got such a strong bench of talent that existed at Charter and that exist at Cox. I really thought Nick brought something unique to the table. He's gonna be the Chief Operating Officer for Charter, a position that, you know, essentially I've done both of those for the past three years, and we didn't backfill it when I had moved into the CEO role. I'm so excited about, you know, him doing that. He'll have marketing, sales, field operations, customer operations. That'll give him the full remit to go focus on the two big areas that I think us and the industry could really benefit from, which is go-to-market and improvement of our service reputation measured by our Net Promoter Score. If you take a look at Nick's background, you know, he did a lot of things really well at Frontier and, you know, we hated that as a competitor. He also did a lot of good things at Vodafone in the U.K. and then globally from a B2B perspective well. Nick will have all of what I described for both residential and for business. It really acts as an accelerant to the team for all the things that we're doing anyway, with the ability to take a little bit, maybe even a radical approach to really getting faster in the marketplace with the go-to-market and with improving our Net Promoter Score. I'm excited to have him join, but that's what he'll do. In the short period of time we have left, let's go back to where we started. Give us some confidence that Charter can be a growth company again. It really kind of ties back to what you asked earlier on in the conversation, which is we have the best network, fully deployed, ubiquitous convergence, symmetrical multi-gig service, and that applies to not just the wireline and Wi-Fi service, but also to our mobile. Our products are the fastest in the marketplace. We save customers thousands dollars a year between mobile and video when it's put on top of our Internet product. We're making significant improvements in our go-to-market and Net Promoter Score in the meantime, the biggest issue that we face right now is the level of new competition and market growth rate, which I both think will return to a normal environment. In the meantime, the changes we're making, you know, can put us on a different trajectory. If none of that, like I said before, you know, really convinces you, just go take a look at the free cash flow today, take a look at the free cash flow for the next two years and beyond, the yield that that produces. The underlying asset here is the workhorse of the entire industry, not just for our wireline and wireless services, but for the wireless services of the rest of the industry as well. We're sitting on a, you know, a very important infrastructure asset that is valuable, that can't be replicated. We don't wanna rest on our laurels, so the things I said before about the ways that we're gonna win customers one at a time still prevail. I think we've got a bright future. I'm confident in our ability to return to growth and, we sit on an amazing asset and free cash flow profile as well. It's a great way to end it. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. Good. All right. Good. Nice to meet you.