Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We are vigorously defending against all of the matters described below. As a matter of course, we are prepared both to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. In this Note, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified in that matter. We have established accrued liabilities for the matters described below where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. Pending Matters In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the plaintiffs. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability. In December 2009, subsidiaries of CenturyLink filed two lawsuits against subsidiaries of Sprint Nextel to recover terminating access charges for VoIP traffic owed under various interconnection agreements and tariffs which originally approximated $34 million in the aggregate. In connection with the first lawsuit, a federal court in Virginia issued a ruling in our favor, which resulted in Sprint paying us approximately $24 million. The other lawsuit is pending in federal court in Louisiana. In that case, in early 2011 the Court dismissed certain of CenturyLink's claims, referred other claims to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), and stayed the litigation. In April 2012, Sprint Nextel filed a petition with the FCC, seeking a declaratory ruling that CenturyLink's access charges do not apply to VoIP originated calls, and earlier this year, CenturyLink filed a complaint with the Missouri Public Service Commission to collect the portion of the remaining unpaid charges arising in that state. We have not deferred any revenue recognition related to these matters. On July 16, 2013, Comcast MO Group, Inc. ("Comcast") filed a lawsuit in Colorado state court against Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest"). Comcast alleges Qwest breached the parties' 1998 tax sharing agreement ("TSA") when it refused to partially indemnify Comcast for a tax liability settlement Comcast reached with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a dispute to which we were not a party. Comcast seeks approximately $80 million in damages, excluding interest. Qwest and Comcast are parties to the TSA in their capacities as successors to the TSA's original parties, U S WEST, Inc., a telecommunications company, and MediaOne Group, Inc., a cable television company, respectively. We have not accrued a liability for this matter because we do not believe that liability is probable. On September 13, 2006, Cargill Financial Markets, Plc ("Cargill") and Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, against Qwest, Koninklijke KPN N.V., KPN Telecom B.V., and other former officers, employees or supervisory board members of KPNQwest N.V. ("KPNQwest"), some of whom were formerly affiliated with Qwest. The lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented KPNQwest's financial and business condition in connection with the origination of a credit facility and wrongfully allowed KPNQwest to borrow funds under that facility. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately €219 million (or approximately $299 million based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2014). The value of this claim will be reduced to the degree plaintiffs receive recovery from a distribution of assets from the bankruptcy estate of KPNQwest. The extent of such expected recovery is not yet known. On April 25, 2012, the court issued its judgment denying the claims asserted by Cargill and Citibank in their lawsuit. Cargill and Citibank are appealing that decision. We do not believe that liability is probable in this matter. The terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates or articles of incorporation, agreements or applicable law may obligate Qwest to indemnify its former directors, officers or employees with respect to the Cargill matter described above, and Qwest has been advancing legal fees and costs to certain former directors, officers or employees in connection with that matter. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in two states where an action is pending (Texas and Massachusetts) and two states where actions were at one time, but are not currently, pending (Arizona and New Mexico). We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements. CenturyLink and certain of its affiliates are defendants in one consolidated securities and four shareholder derivative actions. The actions are pending in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that CenturyLink and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its shareholders. Plaintiffs' complaints focus on alleged material misstatements or omissions concerning CenturyLink's financial condition and changes in CenturyLink's capital allocation strategy in early 2013. These matters are in preliminary phases and the Company intends to defend against the filed actions vigorously. We have not accrued a liability for these matters as it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability. Other Proceedings and Disputes From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including patent infringement allegations, administrative hearings of state public utility commissions relating primarily to our rates or services, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, environmental law issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies, and miscellaneous third party tort actions. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities. These cases have progressed to various stages and one or more may go to trial in the coming 24 months if they are not otherwise resolved. Where applicable, we are seeking full or partial indemnification from our vendors and suppliers. As with all litigation, we are vigorously defending these actions and, as a matter of course, are prepared both to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. We are aware of disputes and litigation within the industry, including litigation against us, regarding the proper charges to be applied between interexchange and local exchange carriers for certain calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an interexchange carrier. Some carriers are refusing to pay these access charges and some are seeking refunds of past charges paid. As both an interexchange carrier and a local exchange carrier, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and litigation are currently not predictable. If we are required to stop assessing these charges or to pay refunds of any such charges, our financial results could be negatively affected.

Commitments and Contingencies

We are vigorously defending against all of the matters described below. As a matter of course, we are prepared both to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. In this Note, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified in that matter. We have established accrued liabilities for the matters described below where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable.

Pending Matters

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the plaintiffs. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability.

In December 2009, subsidiaries of CenturyLink filed two lawsuits against subsidiaries of Sprint Nextel to recover terminating access charges for VoIP traffic owed under various interconnection agreements and tariffs which originally approximated $34 million in the aggregate. In connection with the first lawsuit, a federal court in Virginia issued a ruling in our favor, which resulted in Sprint paying us approximately $24 million. The other lawsuit is pending in federal court in Louisiana. In that case, in early 2011 the Court dismissed certain of CenturyLink's claims, referred other claims to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), and stayed the litigation. In April 2012, Sprint Nextel filed a petition with the FCC, seeking a declaratory ruling that CenturyLink's access charges do not apply to VoIP originated calls, and earlier this year, CenturyLink filed a complaint with the Missouri Public Service Commission to collect the portion of the remaining unpaid charges arising in that state. We have not deferred any revenue recognition related to these matters.

On July 16, 2013, Comcast MO Group, Inc. ("Comcast") filed a lawsuit in Colorado state court against Qwest Communications International, Inc. ("Qwest"). Comcast alleges Qwest breached the parties' 1998 tax sharing agreement ("TSA") when it refused to partially indemnify Comcast for a tax liability settlement Comcast reached with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a dispute to which we were not a party. Comcast seeks approximately $80 million in damages, excluding interest. Qwest and Comcast are parties to the TSA in their capacities as successors to the TSA's original parties, U S WEST, Inc., a telecommunications company, and MediaOne Group, Inc., a cable television company, respectively. We have not accrued a liability for this matter because we do not believe that liability is probable.

On September 13, 2006, Cargill Financial Markets, Plc ("Cargill") and Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, against Qwest, Koninklijke KPN N.V., KPN Telecom B.V., and other former officers, employees or supervisory board members of KPNQwest N.V. ("KPNQwest"), some of whom were formerly affiliated with Qwest. The lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented KPNQwest's financial and business condition in connection with the origination of a credit facility and wrongfully allowed KPNQwest to borrow funds under that facility. Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately €219 million (or approximately $299 million based on the exchange rate on June 30, 2014). The value of this claim will be reduced to the degree plaintiffs receive recovery from a distribution of assets from the bankruptcy estate of KPNQwest. The extent of such expected recovery is not yet known. On April 25, 2012, the court issued its judgment denying the claims asserted by Cargill and Citibank in their lawsuit. Cargill and Citibank are appealing that decision. We do not believe that liability is probable in this matter.

The terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates or articles of incorporation, agreements or applicable law may obligate Qwest to indemnify its former directors, officers or employees with respect to the Cargill matter described above, and Qwest has been advancing legal fees and costs to certain former directors, officers or employees in connection with that matter.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in two states where an action is pending (Texas and Massachusetts) and two states where actions were at one time, but are not currently, pending (Arizona and New Mexico). We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements.

CenturyLink and certain of its affiliates are defendants in one consolidated securities and four shareholder derivative actions. The actions are pending in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that CenturyLink and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its shareholders. Plaintiffs' complaints focus on alleged material misstatements or omissions concerning CenturyLink's financial condition and changes in CenturyLink's capital allocation strategy in early 2013. These matters are in preliminary phases and the Company intends to defend against the filed actions vigorously. We have not accrued a liability for these matters as it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability.

Other Proceedings and Disputes

From time to time, we are involved in other proceedings incidental to our business, including patent infringement allegations, administrative hearings of state public utility commissions relating primarily to our rates or services, actions relating to employee claims, various tax issues, environmental law issues, grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies, and miscellaneous third party tort actions. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings, after considering available defenses and any insurance coverage or indemnification rights, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities. These cases have progressed to various stages and one or more may go to trial in the coming 24 months if they are not otherwise resolved. Where applicable, we are seeking full or partial indemnification from our vendors and suppliers. As with all litigation, we are vigorously defending these actions and, as a matter of course, are prepared both to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities.

We are aware of disputes and litigation within the industry, including litigation against us, regarding the proper charges to be applied between interexchange and local exchange carriers for certain calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an interexchange carrier. Some carriers are refusing to pay these access charges and some are seeking refunds of past charges paid. As both an interexchange carrier and a local exchange carrier, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and litigation are currently not predictable. If we are required to stop assessing these charges or to pay refunds of any such charges, our financial results could be negatively affected.