Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	(18) Commitments and Contingencies: Although from time to time we make short-term purchasing commitments to vendors with respect to capital expenditures, we generally do not enter into firm, written contracts for such activities. In June 2015, Frontier accepted the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) offer of support to price cap carriers under the Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II program, which is intended to provide support for broadband in high cost unserved or underserved areas. This program provides $332 million in annual support, including $19 million in annual support related to the Northwest Operations, through 2020 to make available 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream broadband service to approximately 774,000 households across certain of the 29 states where we now operate. To the extent we do not enable the required number of households with 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream broadband service by the end of the CAF Phase II term, we will be required to return a portion of the funds previously received. In August 2019, the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), which will be the successor to the CAF II program. While the RDOF has not been finalized, its final form could result in a material change in the level of annual funding that Frontier receives from the FCC under CAF II as early as 2021. On April 20, 2017, the FCC issued an Order that significantly altered how Commercial Data Services are regulated. Specifically, the Order adopted a test to determine, on a county-by-county basis, whether price cap ILECs, like Frontier’s DS1 and DS3 services, will continue to be regulated. The test resulted in deregulation in a substantial number of our markets and is allowing Frontier to offer its DS1 and DS3 services in a manner that better responds to the competitive marketplace and allows for commercial negotiation. The areas that remain regulated may be subject to price fluctuations depending upon the price cap formula that year. Multiple parties appealed the Order in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a ruling August 28, 2018, which upheld the vast majority of the FCC’s decision easing regulation of business data services of internet service providers and vacated and remanded one part of the Order back to the FCC. On October 10, 2018, the FCC filed a Motion to Stay the Court’s Decision. Frontier cannot predict the extent to which these regulatory changes could affect revenues at this time. On July 10, 2019, the FCC issued an Order reinstating its original decision regarding transport that was remanded by the 8th Circuit due to lack of notice. While this Order cures the lack of notice cited by the 8th Circuit, Frontier cannot predict whether parties may again appeal the decision. On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontier’s offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety Frontier’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court’s permission to refile. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than the dismissed complaint. Frontier filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend, and the motion remains pending. We continue to dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. In addition, shareholders have filed derivative complaints on behalf of the Company in Connecticut, California, and Delaware courts. The derivative complaints are based, generally, on the same facts asserted in the consolidated class action complaint and allege against current and former officers and directors of the Company (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims for disseminating false and misleading information to shareholders, failure to manage internal controls, and failure to oversee and manage the company; (ii) unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets claims; and (iii) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for the false and misleading statements. We also dispute the allegations in the derivative complaints described above and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. Given that all of these matters are in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result. We are currently defending an intellectual property lawsuit initiated by Sprint Communications which alleges that the VoIP services that we offer to our customers infringe on certain of the plaintiff’s patents. Sprint has asserted these claims against other broadband providers and obtained significant judgements and settlements. While we intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot at this time predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a possible range of loss. In addition, we are party to various legal proceedings (including individual actions, class and putative class actions, and federal and state governmental investigations) arising in the normal course of our business covering a wide range of matters and types of claims including, but not limited to, general contract disputes, billing disputes, rights of access, taxes and surcharges, consumer protection, advertising, sales and the provision of services, trademark and patent infringement, employment, regulatory, tort, claims of competitors and disputes with other carriers. Legal proceedings and litigation are subject to uncertainty and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable. However, we believe that the ultimate resolution of all such matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In October 2013, the California Attorney General’s Office notified certain Verizon companies, including one of the subsidiaries that we acquired in the CTF Acquisition, of potential violations of California state hazardous waste statutes primarily arising from the disposal of electronic components, batteries and aerosol cans at certain California facilities. We are cooperating with this investigation. We maintain an accrual for potential penalties that we deem to be probable and reasonably estimated, and we do not expect that any potential penalties, if ultimately incurred, will be material in comparison to the established accrual. We accrue an expense for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. None of our existing accruals for pending matters, after considering insurance coverage, is material. We monitor our pending litigation for the purpose of adjusting our accruals and revising our disclosures accordingly, when required. Litigation is, however, subject to uncertainty, and the outcome of any particular matter is not predictable. We will vigorously defend our interests in pending litigation, and as of this date, we believe that the ultimate resolution of all such matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or our cash flows.

Although from time to time we make short-term purchasing commitments to vendors with respect to capital expenditures, we generally do not enter into firm, written contracts for such activities.

In June 2015, Frontier accepted the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) offer of support to price cap carriers under the Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II program, which is intended to provide support for broadband in high cost unserved or underserved areas. This program provides $332 million in annual support, including $19 million in annual support related to the Northwest Operations, through 2020 to make available 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream broadband service to approximately 774,000 households across certain of the 29 states where we now operate. To the extent we do not enable the required number of households with 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream broadband service by the end of the CAF Phase II term, we will be required to return a portion of the funds previously received.

In August 2019, the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), which will be the successor to the CAF II program. While the RDOF has not been finalized, its final form could result in a material change in the level of annual funding that Frontier receives from the FCC under CAF II as early as 2021.

On April 20, 2017, the FCC issued an Order that significantly altered how Commercial Data Services are regulated. Specifically, the Order adopted a test to determine, on a county-by-county basis, whether price cap ILECs, like Frontier’s DS1 and DS3 services, will continue to be regulated. The test resulted in deregulation in a substantial number of our markets and is allowing Frontier to offer its DS1 and DS3 services in a manner that better responds to the competitive marketplace and allows for commercial negotiation. The areas that remain regulated may be subject to price fluctuations depending upon the price cap formula that year. Multiple parties appealed the Order in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a ruling August 28, 2018, which upheld the vast majority of the FCC’s decision easing regulation of business data services of internet service providers and vacated and remanded one part of the Order back to the FCC. On October 10, 2018, the FCC filed a Motion to Stay the Court’s Decision. Frontier cannot predict the extent to which these regulatory changes could affect revenues at this time. On July 10, 2019, the FCC issued an Order reinstating its original decision regarding transport that was remanded by the 8th Circuit due to lack of notice. While this Order cures the lack of notice cited by the 8th Circuit, Frontier cannot predict whether parties may again appeal the decision.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontier’s offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety Frontier’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court’s permission to refile. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than the dismissed complaint. Frontier filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend, and the motion remains pending. We continue to dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. In addition, shareholders have filed derivative complaints on behalf of the Company in Connecticut, California, and Delaware courts. The derivative complaints are based, generally, on the same facts asserted in the consolidated class action complaint and allege against current and former officers and directors of the Company (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims for disseminating false and misleading information to shareholders, failure to manage internal controls, and failure to oversee and manage the company; (ii) unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets claims; and (iii) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for

the false and misleading statements. We also dispute the allegations in the derivative complaints described above and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. Given that all of these matters are in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result.

We are currently defending an intellectual property lawsuit initiated by Sprint Communications which alleges that the VoIP services that we offer to our customers infringe on certain of the plaintiff’s patents. Sprint has asserted these claims against other broadband providers and obtained significant judgements and settlements. While we intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot at this time predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a possible range of loss.

In addition, we are party to various legal proceedings (including individual actions, class and putative class actions, and federal and state governmental investigations) arising in the normal course of our business covering a wide range of matters and types of claims including, but not limited to, general contract disputes, billing disputes, rights of access, taxes and surcharges, consumer protection, advertising, sales and the provision of services, trademark and patent infringement, employment, regulatory, tort, claims of competitors and disputes with other carriers. Legal proceedings and litigation are subject to uncertainty and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable. However, we believe that the ultimate resolution of all such matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In October 2013, the California Attorney General’s Office notified certain Verizon companies, including one of the subsidiaries that we acquired in the CTF Acquisition, of potential violations of California state hazardous waste statutes primarily arising from the disposal of electronic components, batteries and aerosol cans at certain California facilities. We are cooperating with this investigation. We maintain an accrual for potential penalties that we deem to be probable and reasonably estimated, and we do not expect that any potential penalties, if ultimately incurred, will be material in comparison to the established accrual.

We accrue an expense for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. None of our existing accruals for pending matters, after considering insurance coverage, is material. We monitor our pending litigation for the purpose of adjusting our accruals and revising our disclosures accordingly, when required. Litigation is, however, subject to uncertainty, and the outcome of any particular matter is not predictable. We will vigorously defend our interests in pending litigation, and as of this date, we believe that the ultimate resolution of all such matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or our cash flows.