Subsequent Events	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events [Text Block]	Subsequent Events On August 1, 2011, the Company sold substantially all of the assets associated with its home security business for $11.5 million. The pre-tax gain on the sale of these assets is estimated to be $8.5 million. The purchase price and related gain on sale is subject to adjustment if the recurring monthly revenue of this business is less than $373,000 in October 2011. Any reduction to the purchase price is limited to a maximum reduction of $1.7 million. In conjunction with this transaction, the Company amended its Receivables Facility to remove the accounts receivable associated with its home security business and to remove its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cincinnati Bell Complete Protection, Inc., as an originator. On July 5, 2011, a shareholder derivative action, captioned NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan), Derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. Phillip R. Cox, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming certain directors and officers of the Company, and Towers Watson & Co. (the Company's compensation consulting firm), as defendants, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their duty of loyalty in connection with 2010 executive compensation decisions and the officer defendants were unjustly enriched. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company from the director and officer defendants and Towers Watson, and also seeks various forms of equitable and/or injunctive relief, and attorneys' and other professional fees and costs. The officer and director defendants believe the suit is without merit and they plan to file appropriate responses in due course. Two additional shareholder derivative actions, captioned Pinchus E. Raul, derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. John F. Cassidy, et al. and Dennis Palkon, derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. John F. Cassidy, et al., were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, on July 8, 2011 and July 13, 2011, respectively. The two state court actions name the current directors and certain officers as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, and assert allegations similar to those asserted in the federal court action and seek relief similar to that requested in the federal action. The state court actions also allege that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by participating in issuing materially false and/or misleading statements in the Company's 2011 Proxy Statement. The officer and director defendants believe the state court suits are without merit and they plan to file appropriate responses in due course.

Subsequent Events

On August 1, 2011, the Company sold substantially all of the assets associated with its home security business for $11.5 million. The pre-tax gain on the sale of these assets is estimated to be $8.5 million. The purchase price and related gain on sale is subject to adjustment if the recurring monthly revenue of this business is less than $373,000 in October 2011. Any reduction to the purchase price is limited to a maximum reduction of $1.7 million. In conjunction with this transaction, the Company amended its Receivables Facility to remove the accounts receivable associated with its home security business and to remove its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cincinnati Bell Complete Protection, Inc., as an originator.

On July 5, 2011, a shareholder derivative action, captioned NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan), Derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. Phillip R. Cox, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming certain directors and officers of the Company, and Towers Watson & Co. (the Company's compensation consulting firm), as defendants, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their duty of loyalty in connection with 2010 executive compensation decisions and the officer defendants were unjustly enriched. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company from the director and officer defendants and Towers Watson, and also seeks various forms of equitable and/or injunctive relief, and attorneys' and other professional fees and costs. The officer and director defendants believe the suit is without merit and they plan to file appropriate responses in due course. Two additional shareholder derivative actions, captioned Pinchus E. Raul, derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. John F. Cassidy, et al. and Dennis Palkon, derivatively on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Inc. v. John F. Cassidy, et al., were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, on July 8, 2011 and July 13, 2011, respectively. The two state court actions name the current directors and certain officers as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, and assert allegations similar to those asserted in the federal court action and seek relief similar to that requested in the federal action. The state court actions also allege that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by participating in issuing materially false and/or misleading statements in the Company's 2011 Proxy Statement. The officer and director defendants believe the state court suits are without merit and they plan to file appropriate responses in due course.