Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items	(7) Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items We are subject to various legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities that individually or in the aggregate could materially affect our financial condition, future results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued for such contingencies aggregate to $92 million and are included in “Other” current liabilities and “Other Liabilities” in our consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2018. The establishment of an accrual does not mean that actual funds have been set aside to satisfy a given contingency. Thus, the resolution of a particular contingency for the amount accrued would have no effect on our results of operations but could materially adversely affect our cash flows for the affected period. We review our accruals at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Below is a description of material legal proceedings and other contingencies pending at March 31, 2018. Although we believe we have accrued for these matters in accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, contingencies are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected in any particular period by unfavorable developments in, or resolution or disposition of, one or more of these matters. For those contingencies in respect of which we believe it is reasonably possible that a loss may result that is materially in excess of the accrual (if any) established for the matter, we have either provided an estimate of such possible loss or range of loss or included a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. In addition to the contingencies described below, we are party to many other legal proceedings and contingencies, the resolution of which are not expected to materially affect our financial condition or future results of operations beyond the amounts accrued. Rights-of-Way Litigation We have been party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving our right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In general, we obtained the rights to construct our networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed our networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions asserted that they are the owners of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities and others who granted us the right to construct and maintain our network did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints sought damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. We also received, and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different legal theories. We have defeated motions for class certification in a number of these actions but expected that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits would continue to seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against us, absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010 as described further below. We negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In November 2010, we negotiated revised settlement terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks and thereafter presented these proposed settlements to the applicable courts. The settlements, affecting current and former landowners, have received final federal court approval in all but one of the applicable states and the parties are actively engaged in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast majority of the applicable states, including payment of claims. We continue to seek approval in the remaining state. Management believes that we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in the remaining action and intends to defend it vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved for all affected landowners. Additionally, given the now-final resolution of all but the last of these matters, management anticipates excluding specific discussion of them in our future reports. Peruvian Tax Litigation In 2005, the Peruvian tax authorities ("SUNAT") issued tax assessments against one of our Peruvian subsidiaries asserting $26 million of additional income tax withholding and value-added taxes ("VAT"), penalties and interest for calendar years 2001 and 2002 on the basis that the Peruvian subsidiary incorrectly documented its importations. After taking into account the developments described below, as well as the accrued interest and foreign exchange effects, the total amount of exposure is $14 million at March 31, 2018, and is accrued for on the consolidated balance sheet. We challenged the assessments via administrative and then judicial review processes. In October 2011, the highest administrative review tribunal (the "Tribunal") decided the central issue underlying the 2002 assessments in SUNAT's favor. We appealed the Tribunal's decision to the first judicial level, which decided the central issue in favor of Level 3. SUNAT and we filed cross-appeals with the court of appeal. In May 2017, the court of appeal issued a decision reversing the first judicial level. In June 2017, we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice, the final judicial level. That appeal is pending. In October 2013, the Tribunal decided the central issue underlying the 2001 assessments in SUNAT’s favor. We appealed that decision to the first judicial level in Peru, which decided the central issue in favor of SUNAT. In June 2017, we filed an appeal with the court of appeal. In November 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the first judicial level and we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice. That appeal is pending. Employee Severance and Contractor Termination Disputes A number of former employees and third-party contractors have asserted a variety of claims in litigation against certain of our Latin American subsidiaries for separation pay, severance, commissions, pension benefits, unpaid vacation pay, breach of employment contracts, unpaid performance bonuses, property damages, moral damages and related statutory penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including accrued interest, attorneys' fees and statutorily mandated inflation adjustments) as a result of their separation from us or termination of service relationships. We are vigorously defending against the asserted claims, which aggregate to approximately $32 million at March 31, 2018. Brazilian Tax Claims In December 2004, March 2009, April 2009 and July 2014, the São Paulo state tax authorities issued tax assessments against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for the Tax on Distribution of Goods and Services (“ICMS”) with respect to revenue from leasing certain assets (in the case of the December 2004, March 2009 and July 2014 assessments) and revenue from the provision of Internet access services (in the case of the April 2009 and July 2014 assessments), by treating such activities as the provision of communications services, to which the ICMS tax applies. In September 2002, July 2009 and May 2012, the Rio de Janeiro state tax authorities issued tax assessments to the same Brazilian subsidiary on similar issues. We have filed objections to these assessments, arguing that the lease of assets and the provision of Internet access are not communication services subject to ICMS. The objections to the September 2002, December 2004 and March 2009 assessments were rejected by the respective state administrative courts, and we have appealed those decisions to the judicial courts. In October 2012 and June 2014, we received favorable rulings from the lower court on the December 2004 and March 2009 assessments regarding equipment leasing, but those rulings are subject to appeal by the state. No ruling has been obtained with respect to the September 2002 assessment. The objections to the April and July 2009 and May 2012 assessments are still pending final administrative decisions. The July 2014 assessment was confirmed during the fourth quarter of 2014 at the first administrative level, and we appealed this decision to the second administrative level. We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from equipment leasing to be without merit. These assessments, if upheld, could result in a loss of up to $54 million at March 31, 2018 in excess of the accruals established for these matters. We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from leasing movable properties to be without merit. Other Matters We have recently been notified of a qui tam action pending against Level 3 Communications, Inc., certain former employees and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned United States of America ex rel., Stephen Bishop v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al. The original qui tam complaint was filed under seal on November 26, 2013, and an amended complaint was filed under seal on June 16, 2014. The court unsealed the complaints on October 26, 2017. The amended complaint alleges that we, principally through two former employees, submitted false claims and made false statements to the government in connection with two government contracts. The relator seeks damages in this lawsuit of approximately $50 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties, pre-and-post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The case is currently stayed. We are evaluating our defenses to the claims. At this time, we do not believe it is probable we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the relator prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $50 million, and is successful in having those damages trebled, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. The two former Level 3 employees named in the qui tam amended complaint and others were also indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on October 3, 2017, and charged with, among other things, accepting kickbacks from a subcontractor, who was also indicted, for work to be performed under a prime government contract. We are fully cooperating in the government’s investigations in this matter. Letters of Credit It is customary for us to use various financial instruments in the normal course of business. These instruments include letters of credit. Letters of credit are conditional commitments issued on our behalf in accordance with specified terms and conditions. As of both March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had outstanding letters of credit or other similar obligations of approximately $36 million, of which $30 million are collateralized by cash that is reflected on the consolidated balance sheets as restricted cash and securities. We do not believe exposure to loss related to our letters of credit is material.

(7) Commitments, Contingencies and Other Items

We are subject to various legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities that individually or in the aggregate could materially affect our financial condition, future results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued for such contingencies aggregate to $92 million and are included in “Other” current liabilities and “Other Liabilities” in our consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2018. The establishment of an accrual does not mean that actual funds have been set aside to satisfy a given contingency. Thus, the resolution of a particular contingency for the amount accrued would have no effect on our results of operations but could materially adversely affect our cash flows for the affected period.

We review our accruals at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Below is a description of material legal proceedings and other contingencies pending at March 31, 2018. Although we believe we have accrued for these matters in accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, contingencies are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected in any particular period by unfavorable developments in, or resolution or disposition of, one or more of these matters. For those contingencies in respect of which we believe it is reasonably possible that a loss may result that is materially in excess of the accrual (if any) established for the matter, we have either provided an estimate of such possible loss or range of loss or included a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. In addition to the contingencies described below, we are party to many other legal proceedings and contingencies, the resolution of which are not expected to materially affect our financial condition or future results of operations beyond the amounts accrued.

Rights-of-Way Litigation

We have been party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving our right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In general, we obtained the rights to construct our networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed our networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions asserted that they are the owners of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities and others who granted us the right to construct and maintain our network did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints sought damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. We also received, and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different legal theories. We have defeated motions for class certification in a number of these actions but expected that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits would continue to seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against us, absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010 as described further below.

We negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, we negotiated revised settlement terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks and thereafter presented these proposed settlements to the applicable courts. The settlements, affecting current and former landowners, have received final federal court approval in all but one of the applicable states and the parties are actively engaged in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast majority of the applicable states, including payment of claims. We continue to seek approval in the remaining state.

Management believes that we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in the remaining action and intends to defend it vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved for all affected landowners. Additionally, given the now-final resolution of all but the last of these matters, management anticipates excluding specific discussion of them in our future reports.

Peruvian Tax Litigation

In 2005, the Peruvian tax authorities ("SUNAT") issued tax assessments against one of our Peruvian subsidiaries asserting $26 million of additional income tax withholding and value-added taxes ("VAT"), penalties and interest for calendar years 2001 and 2002 on the basis that the Peruvian subsidiary incorrectly documented its importations. After taking into account the developments described below, as well as the accrued interest and foreign exchange effects, the total amount of exposure is $14 million at March 31, 2018, and is accrued for on the consolidated balance sheet.

We challenged the assessments via administrative and then judicial review processes. In October 2011, the highest administrative review tribunal (the "Tribunal") decided the central issue underlying the 2002 assessments in SUNAT's favor. We appealed the Tribunal's decision to the first judicial level, which decided the central issue in favor of Level 3. SUNAT and we filed cross-appeals with the court of appeal. In May 2017, the court of appeal issued a decision reversing the first judicial level. In June 2017, we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice, the final judicial level. That appeal is pending.

In October 2013, the Tribunal decided the central issue underlying the 2001 assessments in SUNAT’s favor. We appealed that decision to the first judicial level in Peru, which decided the central issue in favor of SUNAT. In June 2017, we filed an appeal with the court of appeal. In November 2017, the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the first judicial level and we filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice. That appeal is pending.

Employee Severance and Contractor Termination Disputes

A number of former employees and third-party contractors have asserted a variety of claims in litigation against certain of our Latin American subsidiaries for separation pay, severance, commissions, pension benefits, unpaid vacation pay, breach of employment contracts, unpaid performance bonuses, property damages, moral damages and related statutory penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including accrued interest, attorneys' fees and statutorily mandated inflation adjustments) as a result of their separation from us or termination of service relationships. We are vigorously defending against the asserted claims, which aggregate to approximately $32 million at March 31, 2018.

Brazilian Tax Claims

In December 2004, March 2009, April 2009 and July 2014, the São Paulo state tax authorities issued tax assessments against one of our Brazilian subsidiaries for the Tax on Distribution of Goods and Services (“ICMS”) with respect to revenue from leasing certain assets (in the case of the December 2004, March 2009 and July 2014 assessments) and revenue from the provision of Internet access services (in the case of the April 2009 and July 2014 assessments), by treating such activities as the provision of communications services, to which the ICMS tax applies. In September 2002, July 2009 and May 2012, the Rio de Janeiro state tax authorities issued tax assessments to the same Brazilian subsidiary on similar issues.

We have filed objections to these assessments, arguing that the lease of assets and the provision of Internet access are not communication services subject to ICMS. The objections to the September 2002, December 2004 and March 2009 assessments were rejected by the respective state administrative courts, and we have appealed those decisions to the judicial courts. In October 2012 and June 2014, we received favorable rulings from the lower court on the December 2004 and March 2009 assessments regarding equipment leasing, but those rulings are subject to appeal by the state. No ruling has been obtained with respect to the September 2002 assessment. The objections to the April and July 2009 and May 2012 assessments are still pending final administrative decisions. The July 2014 assessment was confirmed during the fourth quarter of 2014 at the first administrative level, and we appealed this decision to the second administrative level. We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from equipment leasing to be without merit. These assessments, if upheld, could result in a loss of up to $54 million at March 31, 2018 in excess of the accruals established for these matters.

We are vigorously contesting all such assessments in both states and, in particular, view the assessment of ICMS on revenue from leasing movable properties to be without merit.

Other Matters

We have recently been notified of a qui tam action pending against Level 3 Communications, Inc., certain former employees and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned United States of America ex rel., Stephen Bishop v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al. The original qui tam complaint was filed under seal on November 26, 2013, and an amended complaint was filed under seal on June 16, 2014. The court unsealed the complaints on October 26, 2017.

The amended complaint alleges that we, principally through two former employees, submitted false claims and made false statements to the government in connection with two government contracts. The relator seeks damages in this lawsuit of approximately $50 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties, pre-and-post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The case is currently stayed.

We are evaluating our defenses to the claims. At this time, we do not believe it is probable we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the relator prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $50 million, and is successful in having those damages trebled, the outcome could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid.

The two former Level 3 employees named in the qui tam amended complaint and others were also indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on October 3, 2017, and charged with, among other things, accepting kickbacks from a subcontractor, who was also indicted, for work to be performed under a prime government contract. We are fully cooperating in the government’s investigations in this matter.

Letters of Credit

It is customary for us to use various financial instruments in the normal course of business. These instruments include letters of credit. Letters of credit are conditional commitments issued on our behalf in accordance with specified terms and conditions. As of both March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had outstanding letters of credit or other similar obligations of approximately $36 million, of which $30 million are collateralized by cash that is reflected on the consolidated balance sheets as restricted cash and securities. We do not believe exposure to loss related to our letters of credit is material.