Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File No. 001-03040

QWEST CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(303) 992-1400
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

        THE REGISTRANT, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., MEETS THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS I(1) (a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-K AND IS THEREFORE FILING THIS FORM WITH REDUCED DISCLOSURE FORMAT PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION I(2).

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý    No o.

        Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K o.

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o    No ý.

        On December 31, 2003, one share of Qwest Corporation common stock was outstanding. None of Qwest Corporation's common stock is held by non-affiliates.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: NONE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

        Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this report to "Qwest," "we," "us," the "Company" and "our" refer to Qwest Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, and references to "QCII" refer to our ultimate parent company, Qwest Communications International Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

        We are wholly owned by Qwest Services Corporation, or QSC, which is wholly owned by QCII. We provide local telecommunications and related services, IntraLATA long-distance services and wireless, data and video services within our local service area, which consists of the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

        We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado in 1911. Pursuant to a merger between QCII and U S WEST, Inc. (our pre-merger parent) on June 30, 2000, which we refer to as the Merger, QCII acquired all the operations of U S WEST and its subsidiaries and we became an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of QCII. Our principal executive offices are located at 1801 California Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, telephone number (303) 992-1400.

        For a discussion of certain risks applicable to our business, financial condition and results of operations, including risks associated with our outstanding legal matters, see the risk factors described in "Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" in Item 7 of this report.

Recent Developments

        As we have previously disclosed, QCII has engaged in preliminary discussions for purposes of resolving certain of the investigations and securities matters to which QCII is subject. These matters are described in detail in Item 3—Legal Proceedings. QCII most recently engaged in these preliminary discussions after it announced its 2003 financial results on February 19, 2004. These most recent discussions and further analysis have led QCII to conclude that a reserve should be provided. Accordingly, QCII has recorded a reserve in its consolidated financial statements for the estimated minimum liability associated with these matters. However, the ultimate outcomes of these matters are still uncertain and there is a significant possibility that the amount of loss QCII ultimately incurs could be substantially more than the reserve QCII has provided. At this time, QCII believes that it is probable that all but $100 million of the recorded reserve will be recoverable out of a portion of insurance proceeds, but the use and allocation of these proceeds has yet to be resolved between QCII and individual insureds.

        The securities actions are in a preliminary phase and QCII continues to defend against these matters vigorously. None of the plaintiffs or the defendants in the securities actions has advanced evidence concerning possible recoverable damages and we have not yet conducted discovery on these and other relevant issues. QCII is currently unable to provide any estimate as to the timing of the resolution of any of these matters. Any settlement of or judgment on one or more of these matters in excess of QCII's recorded reserves could be significant, and QCII can give no assurance that it will have the resources available to pay any such judgment. In the event of an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, QCII's ability to meet its debt service obligations and its financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. As a wholly owned subsidiary of QCII, our business operations and financial condition would be similarly affected.

Operations

        We market and sell our products and services to consumer and business customers. In general, our business customers fall into the following categories: (1) small businesses; (2) national and global

3

businesses; (3) governmental entities; and (4) public and private educational institutions. We also provide our products and services to other telecommunications providers on a wholesale basis. We seek to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our recent and continuing customer service initiatives.

Wireline Services

        We offer a wide variety of wireline products and services in a variety of categories that help people and businesses communicate. Our wireline products and services are offered through our traditional telecommunications network. Our traditional telecommunications network is defined as all equipment used in processing telecommunications transactions within our local service area and forms a portion of the public switched telephone network, or PSTN. The PSTN refers to the worldwide voice telephone network that is accessible to every person with a telephone and a dial tone. Our traditional telephone network is made up of both copper cables and fiber optic broadband cables and serves approximately 16.2 million access lines. Access lines are telephone lines reaching from a central office to customers' premises.

Wireline Products and Services

        The following reflects the key categories of our wireline products and services.

        Local voice services—consumer, business and wholesale.    Through our traditional telephone network, we originate and terminate local voice services within local exchange service territories as defined by the state Public Utility Commissions, or PUCs. Our consumer and business local voice services include:

•

basic local exchange services provided through access lines connected to our portion of the PSTN;



•

switching services for customers' internal communications through facilities that we own;



•

various custom calling features such as Caller ID, Call Waiting, Call Return and 3-Way Calling;



•

enhanced voice services, such as voice mail;



•

operator services, including directory assistance;



•

public telephone service;



•

voice customer premises equipment, or CPE; and



•

collocation services (i.e., hosting of another provider's telecommunication equipment in our facilities).

        On a wholesale basis, we provide network transport, billing services and access to our local network within our local service area to competitive local exchange carriers, or CLECs, and wireless carriers. These services allow CLECs to provide telecommunications services using our local network. CLECs are communications companies certified by a state PUC or similar agency that provide local exchange service within a local access transport area, or LATA, including LATAs within our local service area. At times, we sell unbundled network elements, or UNEs, that allow our wholesale customers to build their own networks and interconnect with our network.

        IntraLATA long-distance voice services—consumer, business and wholesale.    We provide IntraLATA long-distance service to our customers within our local service area. IntraLATA long-distance service refers to services that cross local exchange area boundaries but originate and terminate within the same geographic LATA. These services include calls that terminate outside a caller's local calling area but

4

within their LATA and wide area telecommunications service or "800" services for customers with highly concentrated demand.

        Access services—wholesale.    We provide access services primarily to interexchange carriers, or IXCs, for the use of our local network to connect their customers to their data and Internet protocol, or IP, networks. IXCs provide long-distance services to end-users by handling calls that are made from a phone exchange in one LATA to an exchange in another LATA or between exchanges within a LATA. Competitive communications companies often operate as both CLECs and IXCs.

        Data and Internet services—consumer, business and wholesale.    We offer a broad range of products and professional services to enable our customers to transport voice, data and video telecommunications at speeds ranging from 14.4 kilobits per second to 2.5 gigabits per second. Our customers use these products and services in a variety of ways. Our business customers use them to facilitate internal and external data transmissions, such as transferring files from one location to another. Our consumer customers use them to access email and the Internet under a variety of connection speeds and pricing packages. We provide our data and Internet services in our local service area.

        Our consumer and business data and Internet services are described below:

•

Digital subscriber line, or DSL, which permits existing consumer and business customer telephone lines to operate at higher speeds necessary for video and high-speed data communications to the Internet or private networks. Substantially all of our DSL customers are currently located within our local service area;



•

Asynchronous transfer mode, or ATM, which is a broadband, network transport service that provides a fast, efficient way to move large quantities of information over our highly reliable, scalable and secure fiber optic broadband network;



•

Frame relay, which is a switching technology that allows data to travel in individual packets of variable length. The key advantage to this approach is that a frame relay network can accommodate data packets of various sizes associated with virtually any data protocol;



•

Private lines, which are direct circuits or channels specifically dedicated to the use of an end-user organization for the purpose of directly connecting two or more sites. Private lines offer a secure solution for frequent communication of large amounts of data between sites; and



•

Integrated services digital network, or ISDN, is a comprehensive digital network architecture allowing users to transmit voice, data, video and images—separately or simultaneously—over standard telephone lines or fiber optics.

        On a wholesale basis, we provide collocation services, or hosting of other providers' telecommunications equipment in our facilities. We also provide wholesale private line services primarily to IXCs to allow them use of our local network to connect their customers to their networks.

Distribution Channels

        We sell our retail wireline products and services through a variety of channels, including direct-sales marketing, telemarketing and arrangements with third-party agents. We also provide the use of similar products and services, and the use of our network assets on a wholesale basis, as described above.

Wireless Services

        We operate wireless services primarily through our wholly owned subsidiary, Qwest Wireless LLC. In August 2003, we entered into a service agreement with a subsidiary of Sprint Corporation that

5

allows us to resell Sprint wireless services, including access to Sprint's nationwide personal communication service, or PCS, wireless network, to consumer and business customers, primarily within our local service area. We began offering these Sprint services under our brand name in March 2004. Under the service agreement, we retain control of all sales and marketing, customer service, billing and collection, pricing, promotion and product offerings relating to the Sprint services that we resell. The service agreement provides that Sprint will be our exclusive wireless provider and has an initial term of five years (with automatic renewal for successive one-year terms until either party provides notice of non-renewal). Through Qwest Wireless, we also continue to operate a PCS wireless network that serves select markets within our local service area, including Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Portland, Salt Lake City and other smaller markets. Our wireless customers who are currently being serviced through our proprietary wireless network will be transitioned onto Sprint's network over time.

        We market our wireless products and services through our website, partnership relationships and our sales/call centers. We offer consumer and business customers a broad range of wireless plans, as well as a variety of custom and enhanced features, such as Call Waiting, Caller ID, 3-Way Calling, Voice Messaging, Enhanced Voice Calling and Two-Way Text Messaging. We also offer integrated service, which enables customers to use the same telephone number and voicemail box for their wireless phone as for their home or business phone. We intend to transfer ownership of Qwest Wireless to an affiliate in the near future. After this transfer, we will no longer have significant wireless operations. This transfer will take place as soon as we have received all necessary regulatory approvals, perhaps as early as the second quarter of 2004.

Other Services

        We provide other services that primarily involve the sublease of some of our unused real estate assets, such as space in our office buildings, warehouses and other properties. The majority of these properties are located in our local service area. We also provide affiliate services, which consist of telecommunication services provided to affiliated enterprises.

Customer Service Initiatives

        With increased levels of competition in the telecommunications industry resulting from statutory and regulatory developments and technology advancements, we believe competitive providers are no longer hindered by historical barriers to entry. As a result, we are seeking to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through a number of customer service initiatives supporting our Qwest Spirit of Service™ brand commitment. These initiatives include expanded product bundling, simplified billing, improved customer support and other ongoing measures. For example, we have entered into a strategic relationship with a provider of wireless services to improve our product offerings, we are restructuring our pricing packages and we are investing in improved billing and customer communication systems.

Importance, Duration and Effect of Patents, Trade names and Copyrights

        Either directly or through our subsidiaries, we own or have licenses to various patents, trade names, copyrights and other intellectual property necessary to the conduct of our business. We do not believe that the expiration of any of our intellectual property rights, or the non-renewal of those rights, would materially affect our results of operations.

Competition

Wireline Services

        Local voice services.    In providing local voice services to our consumer and business customers within our local service area, we compete with CLECs, including some owned by national carriers, smaller regional providers, competitive access providers, independent telephone companies, Internet

6

telephony providers, wireless providers and cable companies. Technology substitution, such as wireless substitution for wireline, cable telephony substitution for wireline and cable modem substitution for dial-up modem lines and DSL, has been a significant cause for a decrease in our total access lines in 2003. Competition is based primarily on pricing, packaging of services and features, quality of service and increasingly on meeting customer care needs such as simplified billing and timely response to service calls.

        The obligation to make number portability available from wireline to wireless service, which was recently mandated by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is another competitive factor that may increase access line losses. Also, revenue for local voice services may be affected adversely should providers of Internet protocol telephony (sometimes referred to as voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP) services attract a sizable base of customers who use VoIP to bypass traditional local exchange carriers. A related concern is the risk that access charge fees we receive from either IXCs or CLECs will be reduced if phone-to-phone VoIP calls remain unregulated and are not subject to intercarrier compensation obligations that apply to traditional telephony.

        Our existing infrastructure and long-standing customer relationships make us the market leader in providing local voice services in our local service area. Although our status as an incumbent local exchange carrier, or ILEC, helps make us the leader in providing wireline services within our local service area, increased competition has resulted in recent declines in billable access lines.

        Our competitors, mainly CLECs and CLEC/IXC combinations, have accelerated their use of unbundled network element-platforms, or UNE-P. This service, which we are required to provide at wholesale rates as a matter of current federal and state laws and regulations, allows our competitors to purchase all of the elements they may need to provide competitive local services to our customers. Bell Operating Companies, or BOCs such as Qwest, are required to make their network elements available to competitors, which allows CLECs and CLEC/IXC combinations an alternative to building their own telecommunications facilities. Consequently, we believe these competitors are able to provide local service at a cost advantage, allowing them to gain market share. Meanwhile, the obligation to provide UNEs reduces our revenue and margin. We believe the offering of UNEs will continue to cause downward pressure on our margins and result in incremental retail access line losses.

        IntraLATA long-distance voice services.    National carriers, CLECs and other resellers, such as AT&T Corporation, Sprint, and MCI, Inc. (formerly known as WorldCom, Inc.) compete with us in providing IntraLATA long-distance services in our local service area. Wireless providers also market both IntraLATA and InterLATA long-distance services as a substitute to traditional wireline service.

        Competition in the long-distance consumer market is based primarily on price, customer service, quality and reliability. We are the market share leader in providing IntraLATA long-distance service within our local service area, but face increasing competition from national carriers, which have substantial financial and technical resources. Competition in the business market is based on similar factors, as well as the ability to offer a ubiquitous solution nationwide.

        In addition, the emergence of certain competitors, such as MCI, XO Communications, Inc. and McLeodUSA, Inc. from bankruptcy proceedings with substantially reduced debt could precipitate an industry-wide reduction in prices, thereby causing a decline in our revenue.

        Access services.    Within our local service area, we compete primarily with smaller regional providers, including CLECs, competitive access providers and independent telephone companies. We compete on network quality, customer service, product features, the speed with which we can provide a customer with requested services and price. Although our status as an ILEC helps make us the leader in providing these services within our local service area, increased competition has resulted in a reduction in access minutes of use billed to IXCs and wireless carriers. Also, we earn certain revenues when we originate or terminate calls that are carried by IXCs and wireless carriers that generate carrier

7

access charges for the use of our network. To the extent that VoIP networks or VoIP service providers seek to bypass the traditional methods and obligations to pay this form of intercarrier compensation, or the related "reciprocal compensation" which we earn for use of our network in terminating local calls, these providers could enjoy a competitive advantage versus traditional carriers who must factor the costs of carrier access charges and reciprocal compensation into their charges.

        Data and Internet services.    Business customers are the primary market for these network-related services, although we are increasing our DSL offerings to both consumer and business customers in several markets in our local service area. In providing these services, we compete with national long-distance carriers (such as AT&T, Sprint and MCI), cable operators, BOCs, CLECs and large integrators, International Business Machines Corporation and Electronic Data Systems Corporation. Large integrators are also competing in a new manner, providing customers with managed network services, which takes inter-site traffic off our network. Customers are particularly concerned with network reach, but are also sensitive to quality, reliability, customer service and price. We also compete with cable operators who offer high-speed broadband facilities over cable modem, a technology directly competitive with the DSL services we employ. Cable operators who sell data or Internet services via broadband enjoy a regulatory advantage in that they are not presently subject, at least in the jurisdictions in which we operate, to regulation as "telecommunications" providers, which imposes many costs and obligations, such as the obligation to make UNE-P available to competitors or to provide competitive access and interconnect rights.

Wireless Services

        The market for wireless services within our local service area remains highly competitive. We compete with AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., T-Mobile International, Cingular Wireless, LLC, Sprint and Nextel Communications, among others. Although we expect our competitive position to improve through offering Sprint's nationwide wireless service under our brand name to customers in our local service area, we continue to face heavy competition from national, and some regional, wireless carriers. Competition may increase as additional spectrum is made available within our local service area, both to new competitors and to current wireless providers who may acquire additional spectrum in order to increase their coverage areas and service quality. Competition in the wireless market is based primarily on price, coverage area, services, features, handsets, technical quality and customer service. Our future competitive position will depend on our ability to successfully integrate Sprint services into our branded service offerings and our ability to offer new features and services in packages that meet our customers' needs.

Regulation

        As a general matter, we are subject to extensive state and federal regulation, including requirements and restrictions arising under the Federal Communications Act, as modified in part by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or the Telecommunications Act, state utility laws, and the rules and policies of the FCC, state PUCs and other governmental entities. Federal laws and FCC regulations apply to regulated interstate telecommunications (including international telecommunications that originate or terminate in the United States), while state regulatory authorities have jurisdiction over regulated telecommunications services that are intrastate in nature. Generally, we must obtain and maintain certificates of authority from regulatory bodies in most states where we offer regulated services and must obtain prior regulatory approval of rates, terms and conditions for our intrastate services, where required.

        This structure of public utility regulation generally prescribes the rates, terms and conditions of our regulated wholesale and retail products and services (including those sold or leased to CLECs). While there is some commonality among the regulatory frameworks from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, each state has its own unique set of constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, stipulations and practices

8

that impose restrictions or limitations on the regulated entities' activities. For example, in varying degrees, jurisdictions may provide limited restrictions on the manner in which a regulated entity can interact with affiliates, transfer assets, issue debt and engage in other business activities.

Interconnection

        The FCC is continuing to interpret the obligations of ILECs under the Telecommunications Act to interconnect their networks with, and make UNEs available to, CLECs. These decisions establish our obligations in our local service area and affect our ability to compete outside of our local service area. In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the appeal of the FCC's rules on pricing of UNEs. The Court affirmed the FCC's rules. Since we were following the FCC's then current UNE pricing rules, this decision did not impact the pricing of our UNEs.

        In May 2002, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order on the FCC's rules that determined the UNEs are required to be made available to competitors. The court reversed the FCC, finding that the agency had not given adequate consideration to or properly applied the "necessary and impair" standard of the Telecommunications Act. The court also ruled that the FCC impermissibly failed to take into account the relevance of competition by other types of service providers, including cable and satellite companies. Finally, the court overturned a separate order of the FCC that had authorized "line sharing" where a CLEC purchases only a portion of the copper line connecting the end user. This enables the CLEC to provide high-speed broadband services utilizing DSL technology. The D.C. Circuit stayed its order vacating the FCC's rules to permit the FCC to complete an ongoing rulemaking to determine what elements should be unbundled.

        On August 21, 2003, the FCC issued the triennial review order in response to the court's decision. The triennial review order addressed the regulatory status of a number of UNEs and the obligations of ILECs with respect to them. Among the more significant determinations made by the FCC in the triennial review order were: (i) CLECs are not impaired without access to unbundled switching when serving medium-to-large business and government customers using DS-1 switching capacity and above, but state PUCs are allowed to initiate and conclude proceedings within 90 days of October 2, 2003, to rebut this presumption of no impairment and petition the FCC for a waiver; the Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon PUCs initiated such proceedings but did not petition the FCC for a waiver of the no impairment finding; (ii) CLECs are impaired without access to switching, and, concomitantly, the UNE-P, to serve mass market customers, as well as most high capacity loops and dedicated transport services (the transmission facilities between an ILEC's central offices); proceedings before state PUCs to rebut these presumptions of impairment may be initiated and concluded within nine months of October 2, 2003; (iii) state PUCs must initiate and conclude within nine months of October 2, 2003, proceedings to approve a "batch hot cut migration process" (a process by which a CLEC's customers served by the UNE-P would be moved to the CLEC's own switch in the event switching is eliminated from UNE-P) to be implemented by ILECs to address the costs and timeliness of the hot cut process; (iv) ILECs are no longer required to provide other carriers with access to the high frequency portion of a loop that is used by CLECs to provide competing DSL services (referred to as line sharing); however, current line sharing customers are "grandfathered," and the requirement to allow line sharing will be phased out over a three-year period; (v) ILECs are not required to provide CLECs with access to "next generation" networks and facilities used to provide broadband services; and (vi) the FCC modified the prohibition against CLECs using enhanced, extended links, or combinations of unbundled loops, multiplexing and dedicated transport (referred to as EELs) to provide both local and long-distance services; the FCC established requirements designed to prevent the substitution of EELs for special access services needed by a carrier for the provision of its long-distance services.

        We joined with other ILECs in requesting that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidate the rules that accompanied and were described in the triennial review order. We argued that the FCC did not comply with the May, 2002, ruling by the D.C. Circuit because it failed to properly apply the

9

"necessary and impair" standard and that the FCC impermissibly, and without adequate guidance, delegated to state PUCs its responsibilities under the Telecommunications Act. Other parties challenged various aspects of the triennial review order. On March 2, 2004, consistent with the ILECs' arguments, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating and remanding back to the FCC significant portions of the triennial review order. By its terms, the court's mandate will be stayed for 60 days. If the FCC seeks further review of the decision by the D.C. Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court, the decision may be stayed for a longer period of time.

        In addition to proceedings before the D.C. Circuit relating to the triennial review order, we are also participating in proceedings in all of our in-region states, except Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and South Dakota, that were authorized by the FCC's triennial review order. In these proceedings, we are attempting to demonstrate both the adequacy of our batch hot cut migration process as well as that CLECs would not be impaired in their attempts to compete in the mass market if switching were removed as a UNE. The continued viability and necessity for these state proceedings will likely be affected by the ruling of the D.C. Circuit on the matters pending before it. In light of the D.C. Circuit appeal, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah and Washington have temporarily suspended their triennial review proceedings.

        On September 15, 2003, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, instituting a comprehensive review of the rules pursuant to which UNEs are priced and on how the discounts to CLECs are established for their intended resale of our services. In particular, the FCC indicated that it will re-evaluate the rules and principles surrounding Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost, which is the basis upon which UNE prices are set. The outcome of this rulemaking could have a material effect on the revenue and margins associated with our provision of UNEs to CLECs.

Access Pricing

        The FCC has initiated a number of proceedings that could affect the rates and charges for access services that we sell or purchase. These proceedings and related implementation of resulting FCC decisions have not yet been completed. Because there are a number of such proceedings that are inter-related, and because new technologies (such as VoIP) are emerging that pose further complications, it may take some time for the rulemaking to be completed. It is possible that the FCC will recommend a major restructuring of the current system of intercarrier compensation for use of local networks, and this would affect our rights to claim payment for carrier access charges. There has been a national trend towards reducing the amounts charged for "reciprocal compensation" for use of our network to terminate local, IntraLATA and other intra-state calls, in preference for a "bill and keep" approach, but this is subject to varying decisions and interests by the state agencies that govern these intrastate rates. From time to time, the state PUCs that regulate intrastate access charges conduct proceedings that may affect the rates and charges for those services.

        On May 31, 2000, the FCC adopted the access reform and universal service plan developed by the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long-Distance Service, or CALLS. The adoption of the CALLS proposal resolved a number of outstanding issues before the FCC. The CALLS plan has a five-year life and provides for the following: (i) elimination of the residential pre-subscribed IXC charge; (ii) increases in subscriber line charges; (iii) reductions in switched access usage rates; (iv) the removal of certain implicit universal service support from access charges and direct recovery from end-users; and (v) commitments from participating IXCs to pass through access charge reductions to end-users. We have opted into the five-year CALLS plan.

Advanced Telecommunications Services

        The FCC has ruled that advanced services provided by an ILEC are covered by those provisions of the Telecommunications Act that govern telephone exchange and exchange access services. In

10

January 2002, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the Regulatory Requirements for ILEC Broadband Telecommunications Services. In this proceeding the FCC has sought comment on what changes should be made in traditional regulatory requirements to reflect the competitive market and create incentives for broadband services growth and investment. The FCC has not yet issued final rules.

Intercarrier Compensation

        On April 27, 2001, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that commenced a broad inquiry into, and initiated a fundamental re-examination of, all forms of compensation flowing between carriers as a result of their networks being interconnected. There are two primary forms of intercarrier compensation: (i) reciprocal compensation that applies to local traffic and (ii) access charges that apply to long-distance traffic. The purpose of this FCC proceeding is to examine existing forms of intercarrier compensation and explore alternatives. One form of compensation that is being examined is "bill and keep" under which carriers freely exchange traffic and collect charges from their end-user customers in lieu of the present system in which carriers are obligated to compensate one another for network utilization. The rules emanating from this rulemaking could result in fundamental changes in the charges we collect from other carriers and our end-users.

        On April 27, 2001, the FCC issued an Order with regard to intercarrier compensation for Internet service provider, or ISP-bound traffic. The Order required carriers serving ISP-bound traffic to reduce reciprocal compensation rates over a 36-month period beginning with an initial reduction to $0.0015 per minute of use and ending with a rate of $0.0007 per minute of use. In addition, a cap was placed on the number of minutes of use on which the terminating carrier may charge such rates. This reduction lowered costs that we paid CLECs for delivering such traffic to other carriers, but has not had, and is not likely to have, a material effect on our results of operations.

        On May 3, 2002, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the FCC to implement a rate methodology that is consistent with the court's ruling. The rules promulgated by the FCC remain in effect while the agency contemplates further action. Modifications in the FCC's rules or prescribed rates could increase our expenses.

Wireless Local Number Portability

        On November 10, 2003, the FCC issued an order and further notice of proposed rulemaking on local number portability, or LNP, mandating that wireline carriers must port telephone numbers to wireless carriers. The LNP order provided guidance to both the wireline and wireless industries on matters related to "intermodal" LNP, or the ability of customers to switch from a wireline carrier to a wireless carrier or from a wireless to a wireline carrier without changing telephone numbers.

        In the LNP order, the FCC prescribed that porting from a wireline carrier to a wireless carrier is required where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in which the wireline number is provisioned, including cases where the wireless carrier does not have a point of interconnection or numbering resources in the rate center to which the phone number is assigned. The FCC also sought comment on and will issue further rules regarding the facilitation of wireless to wireline porting in cases where the rate center associated with the wireless number is different from the rate center in which the wireline carrier seeks to serve the customer. The LNP order was preceded by an FCC order, dated October 7, 2003, that dealt with issues related to implementation of wireless-to-wireless LNP.

        The FCC's rules, particularly those related to wireline-to-wireless LNP, may result in an acceleration of our access-line losses.

11

Voice Over Internet Protocol

        On December 1, 2003, the FCC conducted a public forum hearing to gather information concerning advancements, innovations, and regulatory issues related to VoIP services. Chairman Powell of the FCC has announced an intention to make VoIP a higher priority on the FCC's agenda in the next year. Furthermore, on March 10, 2004, the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPR, instituting a formal rulemaking proceeding addressing many issues related to VoIP. This rulemaking raises issues that overlap, to a degree, with the rulemaking concerning ILEC Broadband Telecommunications Services and the Intercarrier Compensation proceeding. There are a number of issues that have been presented to the FCC that concern VoIP and that could affect our business. One is whether VoIP, and/or other forms of VoIP, should be subject to ordinary intercarrier compensation requirements and other federal or state requirements such as those that impose a fee to support "universal service" and support the extension of telecommunications and Internet facilities to rural areas and to public schools and facilities in inner cities. Another issue is whether VoIP providers should have any exemption or immunity from either federal or state regulation and if so, what should be the parameters of this exemption or immunity. We are following these developments closely, as our network is capable of VoIP transport and similarly can be used to carry combinations of voice and other forms of data in an IP-addressed packet format. VoIP offerings are likely to grow as the technology matures and the regulatory situation is clarified and such growth in VoIP could contribute to further declines in our sales of local exchange access lines.

Employees

        As of December 31, 2003, we employed approximately 32,000 employees. We continue to reduce employees in accordance with the plans that QCII approved in the third quarter of 2003. There is additional information regarding this restructuring in Note 7—Restructuring and Merger-related Charges to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this report.

        Approximately 27,000 of our employees are represented by collective bargaining agreements with the Communications Workers of America, or CWA, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or IBEW. In August 2003, we entered into new two-year collective bargaining agreements with the CWA and the IBEW. Each of these agreements was ratified by union members and expires on August 13, 2005. Among other things, these agreements provide for guaranteed wage levels and continuing employment-related benefits.

Website Access

        Our website address is www.qwest.com. You may obtain free electronic copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports at our investor relations website, www.qwest.com/about/investor/, under the heading "SEC Filings." These reports are available on our investor relations website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file them with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

12

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

        Our principal properties do not lend themselves to simple description by character and location. The percentage allocation of our gross investment in property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

        Land and buildings consist of land, land improvements, central office and certain administrative office buildings. Communications equipment primarily consists of switches, routers and transmission electronics. Other network equipment primarily includes conduit and cable. General-purpose computers and other consists principally of computers, office equipment, vehicles and other general support equipment. We own substantially all of our telecommunications equipment required for our business. Total gross investment in property, plant and equipment was approximately $42.7 billion and $42.4 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, before deducting accumulated depreciation.

        We own and lease sales offices in major metropolitan locations. Our network management centers are located primarily in buildings that we own at various locations in geographic areas that we serve. Substantially all of the installations of central office equipment for our local service business are located in buildings and on land that we own.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Legal Proceedings Involving Qwest

Securities Action

        On June 27, 2002, a putative class action was filed in the District Court for the County of Boulder against us, QCII, The Anschutz Family Investment Co., Philip Anschutz, Joseph P. Nacchio and Robin R. Szeliga on behalf of purchasers of QCII's stock between June 28, 2000 and June 27, 2002 and owners of U S WEST stock on June 28, 2000. The complaint alleges, among other things, that QCII and the individual defendants issued false and misleading statements and engaged in improper accounting practices in order to accomplish the Merger, to make QCII appear successful and to inflate the value of QCII's stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, 15 and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of illegal gains and other relief. On July 31, 2002, the defendants removed this state court action to federal district court in Colorado and subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the consolidated securities action identified below. The plaintiffs have moved to remand the lawsuit back to state court. Defendants have opposed that motion, which is pending before the court.

Regulatory Matters

        On February 14, 2002, the Minnesota Department of Commerce filed a formal complaint against us with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or the Minnesota Commission, alleging that we, in contravention of federal and state law, failed to file interconnection agreements with the Minnesota Commission relating to certain of our wholesale customers, and thereby allegedly discriminated against

13

other CLECs. On November 1, 2002, the Minnesota Commission issued a written order adopting in full a proposal by an administrative law judge that we committed 26 individual violations of federal law by failing to file, as required under section 252 of the Telecommunications Act, 26 distinct provisions found in 12 separate agreements with individual CLECs for regulated services in Minnesota. The order also found that we agreed to provide and did provide to McLeodUSA and Eschelon Telecom, Inc. discounts on regulated wholesale services of up to 10% that were not made available to other CLECs, thereby unlawfully discriminating against them. The order found we also violated state law, that the harm caused by our conduct extended to both customers and competitors, and that the damages to CLECs would amount to several million dollars for Minnesota alone.

        On February 28, 2003, the Minnesota Commission issued its initial written decision imposing fines and penalties, which was later revised on April 8, 2003 to include a fine of nearly $26 million and ordered us to:

•

grant a 10% discount off all intrastate Minnesota wholesale services to all CLECs other than Eschelon and McLeodUSA; this discount would be applicable to purchases made by these CLECs during the period beginning on November 15, 2000 and ending on May 15, 2002;



•

grant all CLECs other than Eschelon and McLeodUSA monthly credits of $13 to $16 per UNE-P line (subject to certain offsets) purchased during the months of November 2000 through February 2001;



•

pay all CLECs other than Eschelon and McLeodUSA monthly credits of $2 per access line (subject to certain offsets) purchased during the months of July 2001 through February 2002; and



•

allow CLECs to opt-in to agreements the Minnesota Commission determined should have been publicly filed.

        The Minnesota Commission issued its final, written decision setting forth the penalties and credits described above on May 21, 2003. On June 19, 2003, we appealed the Minnesota Commission's orders to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The appeal is pending.

        Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Iowa and South Dakota have also initiated formal proceedings regarding our alleged failure to file required agreements in those states. On July 25, 2003, we entered into a settlement with the staff of the Arizona Corporation Commission, or the Arizona Commission, to settle this and several other proceedings. The proposed settlement, which must be approved by the Arizona Commission, requires that we provide approximately $21 million in consideration in the form of a voluntary contribution to the Arizona State Treasury, contributions to certain organizations and/or infrastructure investments and refunds in the form of bill credits to CLECs. On December 1, 2003, an administrative law judge issued a recommended decision denying the proposed settlement. The judge also recommended final orders requiring us to pay approximately $11 million in penalties and to issue credits to CLECs for a 24-month period from October 2000 to September 2002 equal to 10% of all sales of wholesale intrastate services provided by us. We filed exceptions to the recommended decisions with the full Arizona Commission. New Mexico has issued an order providing its interpretation of the standard for filing these agreements, identified certain of our contracts as coming within that standard and opened a separate docket to consider further proceedings. Colorado has also opened an investigation into these matters, and on February 27, 2004, the Staff of the Colorado PUC submitted its Initial Comments. The Colorado Staff's Initial Comments recommended that the PUC open a show cause proceeding based upon the Staff's view that Qwest and CLECs had willfully and intentionally violated federal and state law and Commission rules. The Staff also detailed a range of remedies available to the Commission, including but not limited to an assessment of penalties and an obligation to extend credits to CLECs. The proceedings and investigations in New Mexico, Colorado and Washington could result in the imposition of fines and

14

other penalties against us that could be material. Iowa and South Dakota have concluded their inquiries resulting in no imposition of penalties or obligations to issue credits to CLECs in those states. Also, some telecommunications providers have filed private actions based on facts similar to those underlying these administrative proceedings. These private actions, together with any similar, future actions, could result in additional damages and awards that could be significant.

        On June 26, 2003, we received from the FCC a letter of inquiry seeking information related to certain agreements with CLECs covering the provision of a variety of ancillary services including signaling functions and database access, directory and operator assistance. We submitted our initial response to this inquiry on July 31, 2003. We took the position that we were not in violation of our filing obligations under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act. On March 12, 2004 the FCC released its Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $9 million for allegedly not meeting our filing obligations under the Telecommunications Act and the Commission's rules. We have thirty days to pay the proposed forfeiture or file a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. We continue to work cooperatively with the Commission to finally resolve this issue.

        Illuminet, Inc., or Illuminet, a traffic aggregator, and several of its customers have filed complaints with regulatory agencies in Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota and New Mexico, alleging that they are entitled to refunds due to our purported improper implementation of tariffs governing certain signaling services we provide in those states. The commissions in Idaho and Nebraska have ruled in favor of Illuminet and awarded it $1.5 million and $4.8 million, respectively. We sought reconsideration in both states, which was denied, and subsequently we perfected appeals in both states. The proceedings in the other states and in states where Illuminet has not yet filed complaints could result in agency decisions requiring additional refunds.

        As a part of the approval by the FCC of the Merger, the FCC required QCII to engage an independent auditor to perform an attestation review of our compliance with our divestiture of in-region InterLATA services and our ongoing compliance with Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act. In 2001, the FCC began an investigation of QCII's compliance with the divestiture of in-region InterLATA services and our ongoing compliance with Section 271 for the audit years 2000 and 2001. In connection with this investigation, QCII disclosed certain matters to the FCC that occurred in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. These matters were resolved with the issuance of a consent decree on May 7, 2003, by which the investigation was concluded. As part of the consent decree, QCII made a voluntary payment to the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $6.5 million, and agreed to a compliance plan for certain future activities. Separate from this investigation, QCII disclosed matters to the FCC in connection with its 2002 compliance audit, including a change in traffic flow related to wholesale transport for operator services traffic and certain toll-free traffic, certain bill mis-labeling for commercial credit card bills, and certain billing errors for public telephone services originating in South Dakota and for toll free services. The FCC has not yet instituted an investigation into the latter categories of matters. If it does so, an investigation could result in the imposition of fines and other penalties against QCII. The FCC has also instituted an investigation into whether QCII may have impermissibly engaged in the marketing of InterLATA services in Arizona prior to receiving FCC approval of QCII's application to provide such services in that state.

        We have other regulatory actions pending in local regulatory jurisdictions, which call for price decreases, refunds or both. These actions are generally routine and incidental to our business.

Other Matters

        From time to time we receive complaints and become subject to investigations regarding "slamming" (the practice of changing long-distance carriers without the customer's consent), "cramming" (the practice of charging a consumer for goods or services that the consumer has not

15

authorized or ordered) and other sales practices. Through December 2003, we resolved allegations and complaints of slamming and cramming with the Attorneys General for the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington. In each of those states, we agreed to comply with certain terms governing our sales practices and to pay each of the states between $200,000 and $3.75 million. We may become subject to other investigations or complaints in the future and any such complaints or investigations could result in further legal action and the imposition of fines, penalties or damage awards.

        We are subject to a number of environmental matters as a result of our prior operations as part of the Bell System. We believe that expenditures in connection with remedial actions under the current environmental protection laws or related matters will not be material to our business or financial condition.

Legal Proceedings Involving QCII

        QCII is involved in several investigations, securities actions and other matters that, if resolved against QCII, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. These matters are more fully described below.

Investigations, Securities Actions and Derivative Actions

        The investigations and securities actions described below present material and significant risks to QCII. The size, scope and nature of the recent restatements of our and QCII's consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2001 and 2000 affect the risks presented by these matters, and we can give no assurance as to the impacts on our and QCII's financial results or financial condition that may ultimately result from these matters. As QCII has previously disclosed, it has engaged in preliminary discussions for purposes of resolving certain of these matters. QCII most recently engaged in these preliminary discussions after it announced its 2003 financial results on February 19, 2004. These most recent discussions and further analysis have led QCII to conclude that a reserve should be provided. Accordingly, QCII has recorded a reserve in its consolidated financial statements for the estimated minimum liability associated with these matters. However, the ultimate outcomes of these matters are still uncertain and there is a significant possiblity that the amount of loss it ultimately incurs could be substantially more than the reserve it has provided.

        At this time, QCII believes that it is probable that all but $100 million of the recorded reserve will be recoverable out of a portion of insurance proceeds, consisting of cash and letters of credit, which were placed in a trust to cover its losses and the losses of individual insureds following its November 12, 2003 settlement of disputes with certain of its insurance carriers related to, among other things, the investigations and securities and derivative actions described below. However, the use and allocation of these proceeds has yet to be resolved between QCII and individual insureds.

        The securities actions are in a preliminary phase and QCII continues to defend against these matters vigorously. None of the plaintiffs or the defendants in the securities actions has advanced evidence concerning possible recoverable damages and QCII has not yet conducted discovery on these and other relevant issues. QCII is currently unable to provide any estimate as to the timing of the resolution of any of these matters. Any settlement of or judgment in one or more of these matters in excess of QCII's recorded reserves could be significant, and QCII can give no assurance that it will have the resources available to pay any such judgment. In the event of an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, QCII's ability to meet its debt service obligations and its financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. As a wholly owned subsidiary of QCII, our business operations and financial condition would be similarly affected.

16

Investigations

        On April 3, 2002, the SEC issued an order of investigation that made formal an informal investigation of QCII initiated on March 8, 2002. QCII is continuing in its efforts to cooperate fully with the SEC in its investigation. The investigation includes, without limitation, inquiry into several specifically identified QCII accounting practices and transactions and related disclosures that are the subject of the various adjustments and restatements described in the QCII Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, or the QCII 2002 Form 10-K. The investigation also includes inquiry into disclosure and other issues related to transactions between QCII and certain of its vendors and certain investments in the securities of those vendors by individuals associated with QCII.

        On July 9, 2002, QCII was informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado of a criminal investigation of its business. QCII believes the U.S. Attorney's Office is investigating various matters that include the subjects of the investigation by the SEC. QCII is continuing in its efforts to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney's Office in its investigation.

        During 2002, the United States Congress held hearings regarding QCII and matters that are similar to those being investigated by the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office. QCII cooperated fully with Congress in connection with those hearings.

        While QCII is continuing in its efforts to cooperate fully with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office in each of their respective investigations, QCII cannot predict the outcome of those investigations. QCII has engaged in discussions with the SEC staff in an effort to resolve the issues raised in the SEC's investigation of it, and QCII continues to evaluate any possible range of loss. Such discussions are preliminary and QCII cannot predict the likelihood of whether those discussions will result in a settlement and, if so, the terms of such settlement. However, settlements typically involve, among other things, the SEC making claims under the federal securities laws in a complaint filed in United States District Court that, for purposes of the settlement, the defendant neither admits nor denies. Were such a settlement to occur, QCII would expect such claims to address many of the accounting practices and transactions and related disclosures that are the subject of the various restatements QCII has made as well as additional transactions. In addition, any settlement with the SEC may also involve, among other things, the imposition of disgorgement and a civil penalty, the amounts of which could be substantially in excess of QCII's recorded reserve, and the entry of a court order that would require, among other things, that QCII and its officers and directors comply with provisions of the federal securities laws as to which there have been allegations of prior violations.

        In addition, as previously reported, the SEC has conducted an investigation concerning QCII's earnings release for the fourth quarter and full year 2000 issued on January 24, 2001. The release provided pro forma normalized earnings information that excluded certain nonrecurring expense and income items resulting primarily from the Merger. On November 21, 2001, the SEC staff informed QCII of its intent to recommend that the SEC authorize an action against QCII that would allege it should have included in the earnings release a statement of its earnings in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, or GAAP. At the date of this filing, no action has been taken by the SEC. However, QCII expects that if its current discussions with the staff of the SEC result in a settlement, such settlement will include allegations concerning the January 24, 2001 earnings release.

        Also, as previously announced in July 2002 by the General Services Administration, or GSA, the GSA is conducting a review of all contracts with QCII for purposes of determining present responsibility. On September 12, 2003, we were informed that the Inspector General of the GSA had referred to the GSA Suspension/Debarment Official the question of whether QCII (including us and its other subsidiaries) should be considered for debarment. QCII has been informed that the basis for the referral was the February 2003 indictment against four former QCII employees in connection with a transaction with the Arizona School Facilities Board in June 2001 and a civil complaint also filed in

17

February 2003 by the SEC against the same former employees and others relating to the Arizona School Facilities Board transaction and a transaction with Genuity Inc., or Genuity, in 2000. QCII is cooperating fully with the GSA and believes that it and we will remain suppliers of the government, although QCII cannot predict the outcome of this referral.

Securities Actions and Derivative Actions

        Since July 27, 2001, 13 putative class action complaints have been filed in federal district court in Colorado against QCII alleging violations of the federal securities laws. One of those cases has been dismissed. By court order, the remaining actions have been consolidated into a consolidated securities action, which we refer to herein as the "consolidated securities action".

        On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Fourth Consolidated Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss. On January 13, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. In that order, the court allowed plaintiffs to file a proposed amended complaint seeking to remedy the pleading defects addressed in the court's dismissal order and ordered that discovery, which previously had been stayed during the pendency of the motions to dismiss, proceed regarding the surviving claims. On February 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fifth Consolidated Amended Class Complaint, or the Fifth Consolidated Complaint. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint attempts to expand the putative class period previously alleged in the Fourth Consolidated Complaint, seeks to restore the claims dismissed by the court, including claims against certain individual defendants who were dismissed as defendants by the court's dismissal order, and to add additional individual defendants who have not been named as defendants in plaintiffs' previous complaints. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint also advances allegations related to a number of matters and transactions that were not pleaded in the earlier complaints. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of QCII between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, and names as defendants QCII, QCII's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph P. Nacchio, its former Chief Financial Officers, Robin R. Szeliga and Robert S. Woodruff, other of its former officers and current directors and Arthur Andersen LLP. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the putative class period, QCII and certain of the individual defendants made materially false statements regarding the results of QCII's operations in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, that certain of the individual defendants are liable as control persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and that certain of the individual defendants sold some of their shares of QCII's common stock in violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint further alleges that QCII and certain other defendants violated section 11 of the Securities Act by preparing and disseminating false registration statements and prospectuses for the registration of QCII common stock to be issued to U S WEST shareholders in connection with the Merger of the two companies, and for the exchange of $3 billion of QCII's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated January 17, 2001, $3.25 billion of QCII's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated July 12, 2001, and $3.75 billion of QCII's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated October 30, 2001. Additionally, the Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges that certain of the individual defendants are liable as control persons under section 15 of the Securities Act by reason of their stock ownership, management positions and/or membership or representation on the Company's Board of Directors. The Fifth Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. However, counsel for plaintiffs has indicated that the purported class will seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars. On March 8, 2004, QCII and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fifth Consolidated Complaint.

        Since March 2002, seven putative class action suits were filed in federal district court in Colorado purportedly on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and Investment Plan

18

and predecessor plans, or the Plan, from March 7, 1999 until the present. By court order, five of these putative class actions have been consolidated and the claims made by the plaintiff in the sixth case were subsequently included in the Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint, or the Second Consolidated Complaint, described below and referred to as the "consolidated ERISA action." QCII expects the seventh putative class action to be consolidated with the other cases since it asserts substantially the same claims. The Second Consolidated Complaint filed on May 21, 2003, names as defendants, among others, QCII, several former and current directors, officers and employees of QCII, Qwest Asset Management, the QCII Plan Design Committee, the Plan Investment Committee, and the Plan Administrative Committee of the pre-Merger QCII 401(k) Savings Plan. The consolidated ERISA action, which was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan members by allegedly excessively concentrating the Plan's assets invested in QCII's stock, requiring certain participants in the Plan to hold the matching contributions received from QCII in the Qwest Shares Fund, failing to disclose to the participants the alleged accounting improprieties that are the subject of the consolidated securities action, failing to investigate the prudence of investing in QCII's stock, continuing to offer QCII's stock as an investment option under the Plan, failing to investigate the effect of the Merger on Plan assets and then failing to vote the Plan's shares against it, preventing plan participants from acquiring QCII's stock during certain periods, and, as against some of the individual defendants, capitalizing on their private knowledge of QCII's financial condition to reap profits in stock sales. Plaintiffs seek equitable and declaratory relief, along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on January 15, 2003, and QCII has opposed that motion, which is pending before the court. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 22, 2002. Those motions are also pending before the court.

        On December 10, 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, or CalSTRS, filed suit against QCII, certain of QCII's former officers and certain of QCII's current directors and several other defendants, including Arthur Andersen LLP and several investment banks, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco. CalSTRS alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct that caused CalSTRS to lose in excess of $150 million invested in QCII's equity and debt securities. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in a scheme to falsely inflate QCII's revenue and decrease its expenses so that QCII would appear more successful than it actually was during the period in which CalSTRS purchased and sold QCII securities. The complaint purported to state causes of action against QCII for (i) violation of California Corporations Code section 25400 et seq. (securities laws); (ii) violation of California Corporations Code section 17200 et seq. (unfair competition); (iii) fraud, deceit and concealment; and (iv) breach of fiduciary duty. Among other requested relief, CalSTRS sought compensatory, special and punitive damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest and costs. QCII and the individual defendants filed a demurrer, seeking dismissal of all claims. In response, CalSTRS voluntarily dismissed the unfair competition claim but maintained the balance of the complaint. The court denied the demurrer as to the California securities law and fraud claims, but dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against QCII with leave to amend. The court also dismissed the claims against Robert S. Woodruff and Robin R. Szeliga on jurisdictional grounds. On or about July 25, 2003, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The material allegations and the relief sought remain largely the same, but plaintiff no longer alleges claims against Mr. Woodruff and Ms. Szeliga following the court's dismissal of the claims against them. CalSTRS reasserted its claim against QCII for breach of fiduciary duty as a claim of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. QCII filed a second demurrer to that claim, and on November 17, 2003, the court dismissed that claim without leave to amend. Discovery is proceeding in the CalSTRS litigation.

        On November 27, 2002, the State of New Jersey (Treasury Department, Division of Investment), or New Jersey, filed a lawsuit similar to the CalSTRS action in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County. On October 17, 2003, New Jersey filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things,

19

that QCII, certain of QCII's former officers and certain current directors and Arthur Andersen LLP caused QCII's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices by employing improper accounting practices, and by issuing false statements about QCII's business, revenue and profits. As a result, New Jersey contends that it incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. New Jersey's complaint purports to state causes of action against QCII for: (i) fraud; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; and (iii) civil conspiracy. Among other requested relief, New Jersey seeks from the defendants, jointly and severally, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages. On November 17, 2003, QCII filed a motion to dismiss. That motion is pending before the court.

        On January 10, 2003, the State Universities Retirement Systems of Illinois, or SURSI, filed a lawsuit similar to the CalSTRS and New Jersey lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. SURSI filed suit against QCII, certain of QCII's former officers and certain current directors and several other defendants, including Arthur Andersen LLP and several investment banks. On October 29, 2003, SURSI filed a second amended complaint which alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct that caused it to lose in excess of $12.5 million invested in QCII's common stock and debt and equity securities and that defendants engaged in a scheme to falsely inflate Qwest's revenues and decrease its expenses by improper conduct related to transactions with the Arizona School Facilities Board, Genuity, Calpoint LLC, KMC Telecom Holdings, Inc., KPNQwest N.V., and Koninklijke KPN, N.V. The second amended complaint purports to state the following causes of action against QCII: (i) violation of the Illinois Securities Act; (ii) common law fraud; (iii) common law negligent misrepresentation; and (iv) violation of section 11 of the Securities Act. SURSI seeks, among other relief, punitive and exemplary damages, costs, equitable relief including an injunction to freeze or prevent disposition of the defendants' assets and disgorgement. All the individual defendants moved to dismiss the action against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. To date, neither QCII nor the individual defendants have filed a response to the second amended complaint, and the Illinois' court's schedule does not contemplate that answers or motions to dismiss be filed until after the challenges to jurisdiction have been resolved.

        On February 9, 2004, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, or SPA, filed suit against QCII, certain of QCII's current and former directors, officers and employees, as well as several other defendants, including Arthur Andersen LLP, Citigroup Inc. and various affiliated corporations of Citigroup, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. SPA alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct that caused SPA to lose more than $100 million related to SPA's investments in QCII's equity securities purchased between July 5, 2000 and March 11, 2002. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants created a false perception of QCII's revenues and growth prospects. SPA alleges claims against QCII and certain of the individual defendants for violations of sections 18 and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violations of the Colorado Securities Act and common law fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy. The complaint also contends that certain of the individual defendants are liable as "control persons" because they had the power to cause QCII to engage in the unlawful conduct alleged by plaintiffs in violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges other claims against defendants other than QCII. SPA seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, rescission or rescissionary damages, pre-judgment interest, fees and costs.

        On October 22, 2001, a purported derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or the Federal Derivative Litigation. On February 6, 2004, a third amended complaint was filed in the Federal Derivative Litigation, naming as defendants certain of QCII's present and former directors and certain former officers and naming QCII as a nominal defendant. The Federal Derivative Litigation is based upon the allegations made in the consolidated securities action and alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to QCII by engaging in self-dealing, insider trading, usurpation of corporate opportunities, failing to oversee implementation of securities laws that prohibit insider trading, failing to maintain appropriate

20

financial controls within QCII, and causing or permitting QCII to commit alleged securities violations, thus (1) causing QCII to be sued for such violations and (2) subjecting QCII to adverse publicity, increasing its cost of raising capital and impairing earnings. The Federal Derivative Litigation has been consolidated with the consolidated securities action. Plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, disgorgement of alleged insider trading profits.

        On August 9, 2002, a purported derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. A separate alleged derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on or about August 28, 2002. On October 30, 2002, these two alleged derivative lawsuits, or collectively, the Delaware Derivative Litigation, were consolidated. The second amended complaint in the Delaware Derivative Litigation was filed on or about January 23, 2003, naming as defendants certain of QCII's current and former officers and directors and naming QCII as a nominal defendant. In the second amended complaint the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the individual defendants: (i) breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly engaging in illegal insider trading in QCII's stock; (ii) failed to ensure compliance with federal and state disclosure, anti-fraud and insider trading laws within QCII, resulting in exposure to it; (iii) appropriated corporate opportunities, wasted corporate assets and self-dealt in connection with investments in initial public offering securities through QCII's investment bankers; and (iv) improperly awarded severance payments to QCII's former Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Nacchio and QCII's former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Woodruff. The plaintiffs seek recovery of incentive compensation allegedly wrongfully paid to certain defendants, all severance payments made to Messrs. Nacchio and Woodruff, disgorgement, contribution and indemnification, repayment of compensation, injunctive relief, and all costs including legal and accounting fees. On March 17, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, or, in the alternative, to stay the action. As described below, a proposed settlement of the Delaware Derivative Litigation has been reached.

        On each of March 6, 2002 and November 22, 2002, a purported derivative action was filed in Denver District Court, which we refer to collectively as the Colorado Derivative Litigation. On February 5, 2004, plaintiffs in one of these cases filed an amended complaint naming as defendants certain of QCII's current and former officers and directors and Anschutz Company, and naming QCII as a nominal defendant. The two purported derivative actions were consolidated on February 17, 2004. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that various of the individual defendants breached their legal duties to QCII by engaging in various kinds of self-dealings, failing to oversee compliance with laws that prohibit insider trading and self-dealing, and by causing or permitting QCII to commit alleged securities laws violations, thereby causing QCII to be sued for such violations and subjecting QCII to adverse publicity, increasing its cost of raising capital and impairing earnings.

        Beginning in May 2003, the parties to the Colorado Derivative Litigation and the Delaware Derivative Litigation participated in a series of mediation sessions with former United States District Judge Layn R. Phillips. On November 14, 2003, as a result of this process, the parties agreed in principle upon a settlement of the claims asserted in the Colorado Derivative Litigation and the Delaware Derivative Litigation, subject to approval and execution of formal settlement documents, approval by the Denver District Court and dismissal with prejudice of the Colorado Derivative Litigation, the Delaware Derivative Litigation and the Federal Derivative Litigation. From November 14, 2003 until February 17, 2004, the parties engaged in complex negotiations to resolve the remaining issues concerning the potential settlement. On February 17, 2004, the parties reached a formal Stipulation of Settlement, which was filed with the Denver District Court. The stipulation of settlement provides, among other things, that if approved by the Denver District Court and upon dismissal with prejudice of the Delaware Derivative Litigation and the Federal Derivative Litigation, $25 million from the insurance settlement with certain of QCII's insurance carriers will be designated for the exclusive use of QCII to pay losses and QCII will implement a number of corporate governance changes. The Stipulation of Settlement also provides that the Denver District Court may enter awards

21

of attorneys' fees and costs to derivative plaintiffs' counsel from the $25 million in amounts not to exceed $7.5 million and $125,000, respectively. On February 17, 2004, the Denver District Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order and scheduled a hearing to take place on June 15, 2004, to consider final approval of the proposed settlement and derivative plaintiffs' counsels' request for an award of fees and costs. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, QCII mailed, on February 27, 2004, notice of the proposed settlement and hearing to stockholders of its Common stock as of February 17, 2004.

        On or about February 23, 2004, plaintiff in the Federal Derivative Litigation filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to enjoin further proceedings relating to the proposed settlement of the Colorado Derivative Litigation, or alternatively, to enjoin the enforcement of a provision in the Preliminary Approval Order of the Denver District Court which plaintiff claims would prevent the Federal Derivative Litigation from being prosecuted pending a final determination of whether the settlement of the Colorado Derivative Litigation shall be approved. On March 8, 2004, the individual defendants in the Federal Derivative Litigation filed a motion to stay all proceedings in that action pending a determination of the Denver District Court whether to approve the proposed settlement of the derivative claims asserted in the Colorado Derivative Litigation, which would resolve the derivative claims asserted in the Federal Derivative Litigation.

Other Matters

        In January 2001, an amended purported class action complaint was filed in Denver District Court against QCII and certain current and former officers and directors on behalf of stockholders of U S WEST. The complaint alleges that QCII had a duty to pay a quarterly dividend to U S WEST stockholders of record as of June 30, 2000. Plaintiffs further claim that the defendants attempted to avoid paying the dividend by changing the record date from June 30, 2000 to July 10, 2000. In September 2002, QCII filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract claims only. On July 15, 2003, the court denied both summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract remain pending. The case is now in the class certification stage, which QCII is challenging.

        Several purported class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed in various courts against QCII on behalf of landowners in Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Class certification was denied in the Louisiana proceeding and, subsequently, summary judgment was granted in QCII's favor. A new Louisiana class action complaint has recently been filed. Class certification was also denied in the California proceeding, although plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. Class certification was granted in the Illinois proceeding. Class certification has not been resolved yet in the other proceedings. The complaints challenge QCII's right to install its fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way and, in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge QCII's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and pipeline rights-of-way. In Alabama, the complaint challenges QCII's right to install fiber optic cable in any right-of-way, including public highways. The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline companies own a limited property right-of-way that did not include the right to permit QCII to install its fiber optic cable on the plaintiffs' property. The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which QCII's network passes. The Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas actions purport to be on behalf of a class of such landowners in those states, respectively. The Illinois action purports to be on behalf of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which QCII's network passes in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the Illinois action have filed a motion to expand the class to a nationwide class. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as

22

well as punitive damages. Together with some of the other telecommunication carrier defendants, in September 2002, QCII filed a proposed settlement of all these matters (except those in Louisiana) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action claims, except those in Louisiana. The settlement and the court's injunction are opposed by some, but not all, of the plaintiffs' counsel and are on appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. At this time, QCII cannot determine whether such settlement will be ultimately approved or the final cost of the settlement if it is approved.

        On October 4, 2002, a putative class action was filed in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Willem Ackermans, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of KPNQwest, in which QCII was a major shareholder. The complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers of KPNQwest securities, that Ackermans engaged in a fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate KPNQwest revenue and securities. Ackermans was the only defendant named in the original complaint. On January 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants QCII, certain of QCII's former executives who were also on the supervisory board of KPNQwest, and others.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

        Not Applicable.

23

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

        Not Applicable.

ITEM 6. SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

        The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with, and are qualified by reference to, the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in Item 8 of this report and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Item 7 of this report. The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 are derived from, and are qualified by reference to, our audited consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report. The results presented below as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 were previously audited by independent auditors who have ceased operations.