Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings On April 7, 2011, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Viacom International Inc. and several of its subsidiaries (“Viacom”). The complaint asked the court to render a declaratory judgment that certain programming agreements between the Company and Viacom allow the Company to provide video programming services to its customers over its cable systems through devices of the customers' choosing, including through the Company's iPad App and Smart TVs. The complaint further asks the court to declare that by providing video programming services to its customers in this fashion, the Company is not infringing Viacom copyrights. The same day, Viacom filed its own complaint against the Company in the same court, alleging copyright and trademark infringement and breach of contract, and asking for a declaratory judgment that the programming agreements between the Company and Viacom do not allow the Company to distribute Viacom programming “via broadband.” The parties entered into a “standstill” agreement, effective June 17, 2011, pursuant to which no further activity will take place in the case while the parties explore possible settlement of this and other issues between the companies. Absent a settlement of these claims, the Company intends to prosecute its lawsuit, and defend against Viacom's, vigorously. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of Viacom's lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the United States. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Order transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converters boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action, alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the “Cable Act”) against “negative option billing” and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice under California's Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”). Plaintiffs are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees. On February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment. On October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general ordering process complies with the Cable Act's “negative option billing” restriction. On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that informed consent is adequate to satisfy the requirements under the Cable Act. On March 29, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacated its prior summary judgment ruling and, on May 12, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company. The complaint, which also named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”) as well as programming content providers (collectively, the “programmer defendants”), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or “à la carte”) basis. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an “à la carte” basis. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. On October 15, 2009, the district court granted with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, terminating the action. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the court reaffirmed the district court's decision. On July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. The Company is also a defendant in two other purported class actions. On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data service. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On September 25, 2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in this action, which is pending. On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution and attorneys' fees. On April 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other things, omitted the unfair business practices claim and removed two of the three named plaintiffs. In each lawsuit, the Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. Certain Patent Litigation On September 1, 2006, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that TWC and several other cable operators, among other defendants, infringe 18 patents purportedly relating to the Company's customer call center operations and/or voicemail services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. On March 20, 2007, this case, together with other lawsuits filed by Katz, was made subject to a MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2008, TWC and other defendants filed “common” motions for summary judgment, which argued, among other things, that a number of claims in the patents at issue are invalid under Sections 112 and 103 of the Patent Act. On June 19 and August 4, 2008, the court issued orders granting, in part, and denying, in part, those motions. Defendants filed additional individual motions for summary judgment in August 2008, which argued, among other things, that defendants' respective products do not infringe the surviving claims in plaintiff's patents. On August 13, 2009, the district court found one additional patent invalid, but denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on three remaining patents, and on October 27, 2009, the district court denied the defendants' requests for reconsideration of the decision. Based on motions for summary judgment brought by other defendants, the district court found, in decisions on January 29, 2010 and December 3, 2010, two of the three remaining patents invalid with respect to those defendants. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (“Rembrandt”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed several patents purportedly related to a variety of technologies, including high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. In addition, on September 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company infringed several patents purportedly related to “high-speed cable modem internet products and services.” On June 18, 2007, these cases, along with other lawsuits filed by Rembrandt, were made subject to an MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2008, the district court issued its claims construction orders. In response to these orders, the plaintiff has indicated it will dismiss its claims relating to the alleged infringement of eight patents purportedly relating to high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. Summary judgment motions are pending relating to Rembrandt's one remaining claim. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claim vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. From time to time, the Company receives notices from third parties claiming that it infringes their intellectual property rights. Claims of intellectual property infringement could require TWC to enter into royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms, incur substantial monetary liability or be enjoined preliminarily or permanently from further use of the intellectual property in question. In addition, certain agreements entered may require the Company to indemnify the other party for certain third-party intellectual property infringement claims, which could increase the Company's damages and its costs of defending against such claims. Even if the claims are without merit, defending against the claims can be time consuming and costly. As part of the restructuring of TWE in 2003, Time Warner agreed to indemnify the Company from and against any and all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from specified litigation matters brought against the TWE non-cable businesses. Although Time Warner has agreed to indemnify the Company against such liabilities, TWE remains a named party in certain litigation matters. The costs and other effects of future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in pending matters (including those matters described above), and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and operating results.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

On April 7, 2011, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Viacom International Inc. and several of its subsidiaries (“Viacom”). The complaint asked the court to render a declaratory judgment that certain programming agreements between the Company and Viacom allow the Company to provide video programming services to its customers over its cable systems through devices of the customers' choosing, including through the Company's iPad App and Smart TVs. The complaint further asks the court to declare that by providing video programming services to its customers in this fashion, the Company is not infringing Viacom copyrights. The same day, Viacom filed its own complaint against the Company in the same court, alleging copyright and trademark infringement and breach of contract, and asking for a declaratory judgment that the programming agreements between the Company and Viacom do not allow the Company to distribute Viacom programming “via broadband.” The parties entered into a “standstill” agreement, effective June 17, 2011, pursuant to which no further activity will take place in the case while the parties explore possible settlement of this and other issues between the companies. Absent a settlement of these claims, the Company intends to prosecute its lawsuit, and defend against Viacom's, vigorously. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of Viacom's lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the United States. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Order transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converters boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action, alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the “Cable Act”) against “negative option billing” and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice under California's Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”). Plaintiffs are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees. On February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment. On October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general ordering process complies with the Cable Act's “negative option billing” restriction. On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that informed consent is adequate to satisfy the requirements under the Cable Act. On March 29, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacated its prior summary judgment ruling and, on May 12, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company. The complaint, which also named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”) as well as programming content providers (collectively, the “programmer defendants”), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or “à la carte”) basis. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an “à la carte” basis. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. On October 15, 2009, the district court granted with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, terminating the action. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the court reaffirmed the district court's decision. On July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

The Company is also a defendant in two other purported class actions. On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data service. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On September 25, 2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in this action, which is pending. On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution and attorneys' fees. On April 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other things, omitted the unfair business practices claim and removed two of the three named plaintiffs. In each lawsuit, the Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Certain Patent Litigation

On September 1, 2006, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that TWC and several other cable operators, among other defendants, infringe 18 patents purportedly relating to the Company's customer call center operations and/or voicemail services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. On March 20, 2007, this case, together with other lawsuits filed by Katz, was made subject to a MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2008, TWC and other defendants filed “common” motions for summary judgment, which argued, among other things, that a number of claims in the patents at issue are invalid under Sections 112 and 103 of the Patent Act. On June 19 and August 4, 2008, the court issued orders granting, in part, and denying, in part, those motions. Defendants filed additional individual motions for summary judgment in August 2008, which argued, among other things, that defendants' respective products do not infringe the surviving claims in plaintiff's patents. On August 13, 2009, the district court found one additional patent invalid, but denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on three remaining patents, and on October 27, 2009, the district court denied the defendants' requests for reconsideration of the decision. Based on motions for summary judgment brought by other defendants, the district court found, in decisions on January 29, 2010 and December 3, 2010, two of the three remaining patents invalid with respect to those defendants. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (“Rembrandt”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed several patents purportedly related to a variety of technologies, including high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. In addition, on September 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company infringed several patents purportedly related to “high-speed cable modem internet products and services.” On June 18, 2007, these cases, along with other lawsuits filed by Rembrandt, were made subject to an MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2008, the district court issued its claims construction orders. In response to these orders, the plaintiff has indicated it will dismiss its claims relating to the alleged infringement of eight patents purportedly relating to high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. Summary judgment motions are pending relating to Rembrandt's one remaining claim. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claim vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

From time to time, the Company receives notices from third parties claiming that it infringes their intellectual property rights. Claims of intellectual property infringement could require TWC to enter into royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms, incur substantial monetary liability or be enjoined preliminarily or permanently from further use of the intellectual property in question. In addition, certain agreements entered may require the Company to indemnify the other party for certain third-party intellectual property infringement claims, which could increase the Company's damages and its costs of defending against such claims. Even if the claims are without merit, defending against the claims can be time consuming and costly.

As part of the restructuring of TWE in 2003, Time Warner agreed to indemnify the Company from and against any and all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from specified litigation matters brought against the TWE non-cable businesses. Although Time Warner has agreed to indemnify the Company against such liabilities, TWE remains a named party in certain litigation matters.

The costs and other effects of future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in pending matters (including those matters described above), and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and operating results.