Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
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 CenturyLink and the members of the CenturyLink Board have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-20170110. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of CenturyLink’s Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction. On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements. 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 classes on the claims for vested benefits and age discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. 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 alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue in Fulghum. After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested benefits. The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits claims, and in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members could appeal this ruling. No appeal was taken, and all claims for vested benefits thus have lapsed. On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle on all remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. Since then, a settlement agreement has been finalized and, per its terms, the vast majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in the next few months. The amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements. Subsidiaries of CenturyLink, Inc. are among hundreds of companies in an industry-wide dispute, raised in nearly 100 federal lawsuits (filed between 2014 and 2016) that have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas for pretrial procedures. The disputes relate to switched access charges that local exchange carriers ("LECs") collect from interexchange carriers ("IXCs") for IXCs' use of LEC's access services. In the lawsuits, three IXCs, Sprint Communications Company L.P. ("Sprint"), affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon") and affiliates of Level 3 Communications LLC ("Level 3"), assert that federal and state laws bar LECs from collecting access charges when IXCs exchange certain types of calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an IXC. Some of these IXCs have asserted claims seeking refunds of payments for access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges. In addition, Level 3 has ceased paying switched access charges on these calls. In November 2015, the federal court agreed with the LECs and rejected the IXCs' contention that federal law prohibits these particular access charges, and also allowed the IXCs to refile state-law claims. The Verizon entities did not file any new state claims, while Sprint filed state claims substantially similar to those previously dismissed. Based on the November 2015 ruling, we filed suit against Level 3 seeking payment of charges which Level 3 has disputed and withheld. Separately, some of the defendants, including us, have petitioned the FCC to address these issues on an industry-wide basis. As both an IXC and a LEC, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and lawsuits, 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, Inc. 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 a February 2017 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court entered into a final order awarding plaintiffs $4 million and broadening the tax base on a going forward basis. We filed a notice of appeal on March 3, 2017.We expect the outcome of our appeal to 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 which 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 these 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

CenturyLink and the members of the CenturyLink Board have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-20170110. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of CenturyLink’s Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction. On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements.

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 classes on the claims for vested benefits and age discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. 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 alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue in Fulghum. After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested benefits. The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits claims, and in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members could appeal this ruling. No appeal was taken, and all claims for vested benefits thus have lapsed. On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle on all remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. Since then, a settlement agreement has been finalized and, per its terms, the vast majority of the settlement funds were paid out to the claims administrator in March 2017, with the remainder to be paid out in the next few months. The amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements.

Subsidiaries of CenturyLink, Inc. are among hundreds of companies in an industry-wide dispute, raised in nearly 100 federal lawsuits (filed between 2014 and 2016) that have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas for pretrial procedures. The disputes relate to switched access charges that local exchange carriers ("LECs") collect from interexchange carriers ("IXCs") for IXCs' use of LEC's access services. In the lawsuits, three IXCs, Sprint Communications Company L.P. ("Sprint"), affiliates of Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon") and affiliates of Level 3 Communications LLC ("Level 3"), assert that federal and state laws bar LECs from collecting access charges when IXCs exchange certain types of calls between mobile and wireline devices that are routed through an IXC. Some of these IXCs have asserted claims seeking refunds of payments for access charges previously paid and relief from future access charges. In addition, Level 3 has ceased paying switched access charges on these calls.

In November 2015, the federal court agreed with the LECs and rejected the IXCs' contention that federal law prohibits these particular access charges, and also allowed the IXCs to refile state-law claims. The Verizon entities did not file any new state claims, while Sprint filed state claims substantially similar to those previously dismissed. Based on the November 2015 ruling, we filed suit against Level 3 seeking payment of charges which Level 3 has disputed and withheld. Separately, some of the defendants, including us, have petitioned the FCC to address these issues on an industry-wide basis.

As both an IXC and a LEC, we both pay and assess significant amounts of the charges in question. The outcome of these disputes and lawsuits, 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, Inc. 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 a February 2017 ruling in connection with one of these pending cases, the court entered into a final order awarding plaintiffs $4 million and broadening the tax base on a going forward basis. We filed a notice of appeal on March 3, 2017.We expect the outcome of our appeal to 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 which 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 these 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.