Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We are vigorously defending against all of the matters described below under the headings "Pending Matters" and "Other Proceedings and Disputes." As a matter of course, we are prepared both to litigate these 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 these 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 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 the case. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled on February 24, 2015, that the plan documents reviewed do not support any claim for vested benefits, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims based on those documents. The Tenth Circuit decision allowed a subset of claims for vested benefits to return to the district court for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all age discrimination claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's determination that the statute of repose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), is a time bar to the breach of fiduciary duty claims of fifteen named plaintiffs. On June 10, 2015, the district court in Fulghum granted summary judgment to defendants on an additional group of claims for vested benefits. On July 27, 2015, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation by the parties, the district court in Fulghum granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining and unadjudicated vested benefits claims. This judgment is without prejudice to any rights the parties may have to pursue any additional appellate relief. As to any further proceedings that may occur in the district court, defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. 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. 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. In October 2014, the state court granted summary judgment in Qwest's favor. In December 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Comcast has filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals judgment, which remains pending. We have not accrued a liability for this matter because we do not believe that liability is probable. The local exchange carrier subsidiaries of CenturyLink are among hundreds of defendants nationwide in dozens of lawsuits filed by Sprint Communications Company and affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. The plaintiffs in these suits have challenged the right of local exchange carriers to bill interexchange carriers for switched access charges for certain calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an interexchange carrier. In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking refunds of access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges. In addition, these and some other interexchange carriers have ceased paying switched access charges on these calls. These lawsuits involving our local exchange carriers and many other carriers have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas. In November 2015, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal law claims and granted them leave to file state law claims, if any. Some of the defendants, including our affiliated carriers, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to address these issues on an industry-wide basis. As both an interexchange carrier and a local exchange carrier, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the access charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and suits, as well as any related regulatory proceedings that could ensue, 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. CenturyLink and several of its subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed over the past few years in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri by numerous Missouri municipalities alleging underpayment of taxes. These municipalities are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaratory judgment regarding the extent of our obligations to pay certain business license and gross receipts taxes and (ii) a monetary award of back taxes covering 2007 to the present, plus penalties and interest. In an April 2016 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court made findings which, if not overturned, will result in tax liability to us well in excess of the contingent liability we have established. Following further proceedings at the district court, we plan to file an appeal and continue to vigorously defend against these claims. For a variety of reasons, we expect the outcome of our appeal to significantly reduce our ultimate exposure, although we can provide no assurances to this effect. 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. We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities, many of whom are seeking substantial recoveries. 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 to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. We are subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental protection and health and safety laws. From time to time, we are subject to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under these laws. Several such proceedings are currently pending, but none is reasonably expected to exceed $100,000 in fines and penalties. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

We are vigorously defending against all of the matters described below under the headings "Pending Matters" and "Other Proceedings and Disputes." As a matter of course, we are prepared both to litigate these 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 these 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 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 the case. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled on February 24, 2015, that the plan documents reviewed do not support any claim for vested benefits, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims based on those documents. The Tenth Circuit decision allowed a subset of claims for vested benefits to return to the district court for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all age discrimination claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's determination that the statute of repose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), is a time bar to the breach of fiduciary duty claims of fifteen named plaintiffs. On June 10, 2015, the district court in Fulghum granted summary judgment to defendants on an additional group of claims for vested benefits. On July 27, 2015, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation by the parties, the district court in Fulghum granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining and unadjudicated vested benefits claims. This judgment is without prejudice to any rights the parties may have to pursue any additional appellate relief. As to any further proceedings that may occur in the district court, defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. 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.

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. In October 2014, the state court granted summary judgment in Qwest's favor. In December 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Comcast has filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals judgment, which remains pending. We have not accrued a liability for this matter because we do not believe that liability is probable.

The local exchange carrier subsidiaries of CenturyLink are among hundreds of defendants nationwide in dozens of lawsuits filed by Sprint Communications Company and affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. The plaintiffs in these suits have challenged the right of local exchange carriers to bill interexchange carriers for switched access charges for certain calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an interexchange carrier. In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking refunds of access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges. In addition, these and some other interexchange carriers have ceased paying switched access charges on these calls. These lawsuits involving our local exchange carriers and many other carriers have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas. In November 2015, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal law claims and granted them leave to file state law claims, if any. Some of the defendants, including our affiliated carriers, have petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to address these issues on an industry-wide basis.

As both an interexchange carrier and a local exchange carrier, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the access charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and suits, as well as any related regulatory proceedings that could ensue, 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.

CenturyLink and several of its subsidiaries are defendants in lawsuits filed over the past few years in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri by numerous Missouri municipalities alleging underpayment of taxes. These municipalities are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaratory judgment regarding the extent of our obligations to pay certain business license and gross receipts taxes and (ii) a monetary award of back taxes covering 2007 to the present, plus penalties and interest. In an April 2016 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court made findings which, if not overturned, will result in tax liability to us well in excess of the contingent liability we have established. Following further proceedings at the district court, we plan to file an appeal and continue to vigorously defend against these claims. For a variety of reasons, we expect the outcome of our appeal to significantly reduce our ultimate exposure, although we can provide no assurances to this effect.

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.

We are currently defending several patent infringement lawsuits asserted against us by non-practicing entities, many of whom are seeking substantial recoveries. 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 to litigate the matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities.

We are subject to various foreign, federal, state and local environmental protection and health and safety laws. From time to time, we are subject to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under these laws. Several such proceedings are currently pending, but none is reasonably expected to exceed $100,000 in fines and penalties.

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.