Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and directors. Later five similar class actions were consolidated with this matter (the “NY Actions”). The NY Actions were settled in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015. In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge. Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys’ fees. In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement was conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the settlement in October 2016 and granted final approval in March 2017. The settlement became final in May 2017. In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015. The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Liberty Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter, the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement (“Proxy”) by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. Charter filed a motion to dismiss this litigation and on May 31, 2017, the court issued an opinion, concluding a number of issues but reserving ruling on Charter’s motion until further briefing can be done regarding whether plaintiff’s claims are direct or derivative. The parties are presently providing the additional briefing that the court seeks. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows. The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Legacy Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving Legacy TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows. On December 19, 2011, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging that Legacy TWC infringed 12 U.S. patents purportedly relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services. Over the course of the litigation Sprint dismissed its claims relating to five of the asserted patents, and shortly before trial Sprint dropped its claims with respect to two additional patents. A trial on the remaining five patents began on February 13, 2017. On March 3, 2017 the jury returned a verdict of $140 million against Legacy TWC and further concluded that Legacy TWC had willfully infringed Sprint’s patents. The court subsequently declined to enhance the damage award as a result of the purported willful infringement. On May 30, 2017, the court awarded Sprint an additional $6 million, representing pre-judgment interest on the damages award. On June 28, 2017, the Company filed its notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to its appeal, the Company will continue to pursue indemnity from one of its vendors. The impact of the verdict was reflected in the adjustment to net current liabilities as described in Note 2. The Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition. The ultimate outcome of this litigation or the pursuit of indemnity against the Company’s vendor cannot be predicted. On October 23, 2015, the New York Office of the Attorney General (the “NY AG”) began an investigation of Legacy TWC's advertised Internet speeds and other Internet product advertising. On February 1, 2017, the NY AG filed suit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York alleging that Legacy TWC's advertising of Internet speeds was false and misleading. The suit seeks restitution and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the NY AG’s complaint. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, no assurances can be made that such defenses would ultimately be successful. At this time, the Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company is a defendant or co-defendant in several lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property rights, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the patents at issue. While the Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. The Company is party to lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting its business, including lawsuits claiming violation of wage and hour laws and breach of contract by vendors, including by one of its programmers. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against the Company cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, such lawsuits could have, in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Whether or not the Company ultimately prevails in any particular lawsuit or claim, litigation can be time consuming and costly and injure the Company’s reputation.

Contingencies

In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and directors. Later five similar class actions were consolidated with this matter (the “NY Actions”). The NY Actions were settled in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015. In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge. Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys’ fees.

In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement was conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the settlement in October 2016 and granted final approval in March 2017. The settlement became final in May 2017.

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015. The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Liberty Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter, the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement (“Proxy”) by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions. Charter filed a motion to dismiss this litigation and on May 31, 2017, the court issued an opinion, concluding a number of issues but reserving ruling on Charter’s motion until further briefing can be done regarding whether plaintiff’s claims are direct or derivative. The parties are presently providing the additional briefing that the court seeks. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit. Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The California Attorney General and the Alameda County, California District Attorney are investigating whether certain of Legacy Charter’s waste disposal policies, procedures and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. That investigation was commenced in January 2014. A similar investigation involving Legacy TWC was initiated in February 2012. Charter is cooperating with these investigations. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these investigations, it does not expect that the outcome will have a material effect on its operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

On December 19, 2011, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas alleging that Legacy TWC infringed 12 U.S. patents purportedly relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services. Over the course of the litigation Sprint dismissed its claims relating to five of the asserted patents, and shortly before trial Sprint dropped its claims with respect to two additional patents. A trial on the remaining five patents began on February 13, 2017. On March 3, 2017 the jury returned a verdict of $140 million against Legacy TWC and further concluded that Legacy TWC had willfully infringed Sprint’s patents. The court subsequently declined to enhance the damage award as a result of the purported willful infringement. On May 30, 2017, the court awarded Sprint an additional $6 million, representing pre-judgment interest on the damages award. On June 28, 2017, the Company filed its notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to its appeal, the Company will continue to pursue indemnity from one of its vendors. The impact of the verdict was reflected in the adjustment to net current liabilities as described in Note 2. The Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations or financial condition. The ultimate outcome of this litigation or the pursuit of indemnity against the Company’s vendor cannot be predicted.

On October 23, 2015, the New York Office of the Attorney General (the “NY AG”) began an investigation of Legacy TWC's advertised Internet speeds and other Internet product advertising. On February 1, 2017, the NY AG filed suit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York alleging that Legacy TWC's advertising of Internet speeds was false and misleading. The suit seeks restitution and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the NY AG’s complaint. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, no assurances can be made that such defenses would ultimately be successful. At this time, the Company does not expect that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company is a defendant or co-defendant in several lawsuits involving alleged infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of its businesses. Other industry participants are also defendants in certain of these cases. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company infringes on any intellectual property rights, the Company may be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company or its vendors to modify certain products and services the Company offers to its subscribers, as well as negotiate royalty or license agreements with respect to the patents at issue. While the Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously, no assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any such claims nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company is party to lawsuits, claims and regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of conducting its business, including lawsuits claiming violation of wage and hour laws and breach of contract by vendors, including by one of its programmers. The ultimate outcome of these other legal matters pending against the Company cannot be predicted, and although such lawsuits and claims are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, such lawsuits could have, in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Whether or not the Company ultimately prevails in any particular lawsuit or claim, litigation can be time consuming and costly and injure the Company’s reputation.