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, 2004, 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

i

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

        Our industry uses many terms and acronyms that may not be familiar to you. To assist you in reading this document, we have provided below definitions of some of these terms.

        Access Lines.    Telephone lines reaching from the customer's premises to a connection with the public switched telephone network. When we refer to our access lines we mean all our consumer, wholesale and business access lines, including those used by us and our affiliates.

        Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM).    A broadband, network transport service that provides a fast, efficient way to move large quantities of information.

        Bell Operating Company (BOC).    As defined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the term includes Qwest Corporation, as the successor to U S WEST Communications, Inc. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, "Bell Operating Company" also would include any successor or assign of Qwest Corporation that provides wireline telephone exchange service.

        Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs).    Telecommunications providers that compete with us in providing local voice services in our local service area.

        Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).    Telecommunications equipment sold to a customer, usually in connection with our providing telecommunications services to that customer.

        Dedicated Internet Access (DIA).    Internet access ranging from 128 kilobits per second to 2.4 gigabits per second.

        Digital Subscriber Line (DSL).    A technology for providing high-speed data communications over telephone lines.

        Frame Relay.    A high speed switching technology, primarily used to interconnect multiple local networks.

        Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC).    A traditional telecommunications provider, such as Qwest Corporation, that, prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, had the exclusive right and responsibility for providing local telecommunications services in its local service area.

        Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN).    A telecommunications standard that uses digital transmission technology to support voice, video and data communication applications over regular telephone lines.

        Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).    Telecommunications providers that 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.

        InterLATA long-distance services.    Telecommunications services, including "800" services, that cross LATA boundaries.

        Internet Dial Access.    Provides ISPs and business customers with a comprehensive, reliable and cost-effective dial-up network infrastructure.

        Internet Protocol (IP).    A protocol for transferring information across the Internet in packets of data.

        Internet Service Providers (ISPs).    Businesses that provide Internet access to retail customers.

1

        IntraLATA long-distance services.    These services include calls that terminate outside a caller's local calling area but within their LATA including wide area telecommunications service or "800" services for customers with highly concentrated demand.

        Local Access Transport Area (LATA).    A geographical area in which telecommunications providers may offer services. There are 163 LATAs in the United States and 27 in our local service area.

        Local Calling Area.    A geographical area, usually smaller than a LATA, within which a customer can make telephone calls without incurring long-distance charges. Multiple local calling areas make up a LATA.

        Private Lines.    Direct circuits or channels specifically dedicated to an end-user organization for the purpose of directly connecting two or more sites.

        Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).    The worldwide voice telephone network that is accessible to every person with a telephone and a dial tone.

        Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) Platform (UNE-P).    Discrete elements of our network that are sold or leased to competitive telecommunications providers and that may be combined to provide their retail telecommunications services.

        Virtual Private Network (VPN).    A private network that operates securely within a public network (such as the Internet) by means of encrypting transmissions.

        Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).    An application that provides real-time, two-way voice capability originating in the Internet protocol over a broadband connection.

        Web Hosting.    The providing of space, power and bandwidth in data centers for hosting of customers' Internet equipment.

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, long-distance services and 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.

        Our operations are included in the consolidated operations of our ultimate parent, QCII, and generally account for the majority of QCII's consolidated revenue. Our telecommunications products and services are provided through our traditional telephone network located within our local service area. In addition to our operations, QCII maintains a wireless business (including the wireless operations we transferred to an affiliate in May 2004) and a national fiber optic network. Through its fiber optic network, QCII provides the following wireline products and services that we do not provide:

•

InterLATA long-distance services;



•

Dedicated Internet access;



•

Virtual private network;



•

Internet dial access;



•

Web hosting; and



•

Professional services.

        For certain other products and services we provide and for a variety of internal communications functions, we utilize QCII's fiber optic network to transport voice and data traffic. Also, through its fiber optic network, QCII provides nationally some data and Internet access services, including private line, ATM and Frame Relay, that are similar to services we provide within our local service area.

        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.

        Until May 2004, we provided wireless services through our subsidiary, Qwest Wireless LLC. On May 1, 2004, we transferred ownership of Qwest Wireless to an affiliate. The transfer was made in the form of a dividend to QSC, and, as a result, no consideration was exchanged. Due to this transfer, we no longer have wireless operations, and the results of Qwest Wireless operations are presented as discontinued operations in these financial statements. For a summary of the results of operations related to our discontinued operations please see Note 7—Transfer of Qwest Wireless Operations to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this report.

        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.

3

Recent Developments

        On February 11, 2005, QCII transmitted a letter to the Board of Directors of MCI, Inc. in which it proposed the acquisition of MCI by QCII and included the initial terms of its proposal. QCII reconfirmed the terms of its proposal in a letter to MCI's Board of Directors on February 13, 2005. It subsequently learned that MCI had agreed to be acquired by Verizon Communications Inc., and, on February 17, 2005, QCII transmitted another letter to MCI's Board of Directors in which it notified MCI of its intention to submit a modified proposal to acquire MCI, notwithstanding MCI's agreement with Verizon, and also noted QCII's expectation that MCI and its advisors will engage it in a meaningful dialogue regarding the merits of QCII's proposal and provide QCII access to due diligence information that it believes has been made available to other parties. On February 24, 2005, QCII transmitted another letter to MCI's Board of Directors in which QCII modified the terms of its proposal to acquire MCI and again urged MCI's Board of Directors to engage with QCII in meaningful discussions regarding QCII's revised proposal. Under the terms of QCII's revised proposal, MCI shareholders would receive $24.60 per MCI share, comprised of $9.10 in cash and $15.50 of QCII's common stock based on an exchange ratio of 3.735 shares of QCII's common stock per MCI share, subject to adjustment if the average trading price for QCII's common stock during a period of twenty trading days prior to the closing of the transaction does not equal $4.15 per share. We cannot provide any assurance as to whether QCII will be successful in its effort to acquire MCI.

Financial Condition

        The below table provides a summary of some of our key financial metrics. This information should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified by reference to, our 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.

*

Working capital deficit is calculated as the amount by which our current liabilities exceed our current assets.

        As shown above, over the past three years we have experienced declining revenue. We are taking a number of measures designed to improve our financial condition, such as our participation in QCII's recent and continuing customer service initiatives, cost reductions and entering into financial transactions to extend maturities on our debt. However, if revenue and cash provided by operations continue to decline, if economic conditions weaken, if competitive pressures increase or if QCII or we

4

become subject to significant judgments and/or settlements as further discussed in "Legal Proceedings" in Item 3 of this report, our ability to meet our debt obligations and our financial condition could be materially and adversely affected, potentially adversely affecting our credit ratings, our ability to access the capital markets and our compliance with debt covenants.

Reserve for Investigations and Securities Matters

        As we have previously disclosed, during 2004 and 2003, QCII recorded reserves in its financial statements totaling $750 million in connection with the investigations and securities actions described in "Legal Proceedings" in Item 3 of this report. The $750 million reserve was reduced by $125 million in December 2004 as a result of a payment in that amount in connection with a settlement in October 2004 of the investigation of QCII by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The remaining reserve amount represents a final payment to be made in connection with the SEC settlement in the amount of $125 million and the minimum estimated amount of loss QCII believes is probable with respect to the securities actions. 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. If the recorded reserve that will remain after QCII has paid the amount owed under the SEC settlement is insufficient to cover these matters, QCII will need to record additional charges to its statement of operations in future periods. QCII is unable at this time to provide a reasonable estimate of the upper end of the range of loss associated with these matters due to their preliminary and complex nature.

        QCII continues to defend against the securities actions vigorously and is currently unable to provide any estimate as to the timing of the resolution of these actions. Any settlement of or judgment in one or more of these actions substantially in excess of its recorded reserves could have a significant impact on QCII, and QCII can give no assurance that it will have the resources available to pay any such judgment. The magnitude of any settlement or judgment resulting from these actions could materially and adversely affect QCII's ability to meet its debt obligations and its financial condition, potentially impacting its credit ratings, its ability to access capital markets and its compliance with debt covenants. In addition, the magnitude of any settlement or judgment may cause it to draw down significantly on its cash balances, which might force it to obtain additional financing or explore other methods to generate cash. Such methods could include issuing additional securities or selling assets. 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 businesses; (3) governmental entities; and (4) public and private educational institutions. We also provide our products and services to other telecommunications providers, including affiliated entities, who purchase our products and services on a wholesale basis.

Wireline Services

        We offer 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 telephone network. Our traditional telephone network consists of all equipment used in processing telecommunications transactions within our local service area and forms a portion of the public switched telephone network. Our traditional telephone network is made up of both copper cables and fiber optic broadband cables and serves approximately 15.5 million access lines in 14 states.

5

Wireline Products and Services

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

Voice 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 state regulators. Through this network, we provide:

•

basic local exchange services provided through access lines connected to our portion of the traditional telephone network;



•

switching services for customers' 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; 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 other telecom providers and wireless carriers. These services allow other telecom companies to provide telecommunications services using our local network. At times we sell UNEs or UNE-P, which allow our wholesale customers to assemble or arrange for their own networks and to interconnect with our local network.

        Long-distance voice services—consumer, business and wholesale.    We provide IntraLATA long-distance services to our customers within our local service area.

        Access services—wholesale.    We also provide services to other data and telecommunications providers within our local service area to connect their customers to their networks so that they can provide long-distance, transport, data and Internet services.

Data and Internet Services

        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 up to 10 gigabits per second. Our customers use these products and services in a variety of ways. Our business customers make internal and external data transmissions, such as transferring files from one location to another. Our consumer customers access email and the Internet under a variety of connection speeds and pricing packages. Also, our wholesale customers use our facilities for collocation, or to host their equipment and use our private line services to connect their customers to their networks.

        Some of our data and Internet services are described below:

•

Digital subscriber line, 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;



•

Asynchronous transfer mode, 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;

6

•

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, which uses digital transmission technology to support voice, video and data communication applications over regular telephone lines.

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.

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.

Affiliate Services

        We provide telephony, data services, billing services and other miscellaneous services to our affiliates.

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 believe factors such as pricing, customer service and bundling are increasingly becoming determining factors in maintaining or increasing market share in the telecommunications industry.

        We are seeking to distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our participation in a number of QCII's customer service initiatives supporting its Qwest Spirit of Service™ brand commitment. We believe these initiatives were a factor in improving QCII's and our customer service relative to our peers in some respects over the past year. In a residential local telephone service evaluation of 11 providers in the Western region, QCII was ranked eighth compared to its next-to-last and last-place ratings in earlier years. The study also said that QCII improved in all six components of customer satisfaction, which are customer service, billing, performance/reliability, image, offers/promotions and cost of service. QCII's customer service initiatives include the following:

•

Qwest Choice™. In 2003 and into 2004, QCII restructured its packaging and pricing plans in order to provide customers with greater choice, flexibility and simplification. These plans offer a variety of combinations of voice services, wireless services and data services. QCII also improved its product offerings during this period by entering into strategic relationships with providers of wireless and video services.



•

Promise of Value™. QCII initiated its Promise of Value™ campaign in late 2003. This campaign assists various customers in designing their mix of QCII products and services. As part of this campaign, QCII is offering free account reviews and advising its customers on the best Qwest solution for its value.

7

•

Customer Support. QCII has opened seventy retail locations where customers can learn more about its products and services and submit orders in person and has re-designed its website and the appearance of its bills to be clearer for its customers.

Importance, Duration and Effect of Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights

        Either directly or through our subsidiaries, we own or have licenses to various patents, trademarks, 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 national carriers, smaller regional providers, competitive access providers, independent telephone companies, Internet telephony providers, wireless providers and cable companies. Technology substitution, such as wireless substitution for wireline telephones, cable telephony substitution for wireline telephones 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 2004. 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 mandated by the FCC in late 2003, is another competitive factor that may contribute to access line losses. Also, revenue for local voice services may be affected adversely should providers of VoIP services attract a sizable base of customers who use VoIP to bypass traditional local exchange carriers.

        Although our status as an incumbent local exchange carrier helps make us the leader in providing wireline services within our local service area, increased competition has resulted in declines in our access lines. Please see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in Item 7 of this report for more information regarding trends affecting our access lines.

        Our competitors, mainly CLECs and CLEC/IXC combinations, continue their use of unbundled network elements, or UNEs. These functions and services, which we have been required to provide at wholesale rates as a matter of current federal and state laws and regulations, has allowed our competitors to purchase all of the elements they need to provide competitive local services to our customers. Bell Operating Companies, or BOCs such as Qwest, have been required to make their network elements available to the competitors, which allows CLECs and CLEC/IXC combinations an alternative to building their own telecommunications facilities. Consequently, we believe these competitors have been able to provide local service at a cost advantage, allowing them to gain market share. The obligation to provide UNEs reduces our revenue and margin.

        On February 5, 2005, the FCC issued new rules eliminating the ILECs' obligations to continue providing UNE-P and unbundled switching as a UNE. The new rules no longer require ILECs to make UNE-P available for new purchases and gives CLECs 12 months to migrate existing circuits off the UNE platform to other service or facility arrangements. For the term of the transition, the monthly price of UNE-P will increase slightly. In anticipation of the FCC decision, we began offering CLECs the Qwest Platform Plus™ (QPP™) product in 2004 as an alternative to UNE-P. The majority of UNE-P purchasers have entered into agreements with Qwest to purchase QPP. While we believe use of our new wholesale product will reduce the downward pressure on our margins, its availability will still likely result in further incremental retail access line losses.

8

        Long-distance voice services.    National telecommunications providers, such as Sprint and MCI 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. Although we are a market share leader in providing IntraLATA long-distance services within our local service area, we have lost significant market share over the last few years and we will continue to face increasing competition in the long-distance consumer market from national carriers, who have substantial financial and technical resources. Competition in the business market is based on similar factors.

        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 national long-distance carriers and wireless carriers. Also, we earn revenue when we originate or terminate calls that are carried by national long-distance carriers and wireless carriers that generate carrier access charges for the use of our network. To the extent that VoIP networks or VoIP service providers bypass the traditional methods for originating and terminating local calls, these providers could enjoy a competitive advantage versus traditional carriers who must pay the costs of carrier access and reciprocal compensation 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 to our business customers, we compete with national long-distance carriers (such as AT&T, Sprint and MCI), cable operators, ILECs, CLECs and large integrators (such as 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 modems that 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 that to make UNE-P available to competitors or to provide competitive access and interconnect rights.

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 regulators and other governmental entities. Federal laws and FCC regulations generally apply to regulated interstate telecommunications (including international telecommunications that originate or terminate in the United States), while state regulatory authorities generally have jurisdiction over regulated telecommunications services that are intrastate in nature. The local competition aspects of the Telecommunications Act are subject to FCC rulemaking, but the state regulatory authorities play a significant role in implementing those FCC rules. 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.

9

        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 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 other telecommunications providers. These decisions establish our obligations in our local service area and affect our ability to compete outside of our local service area. On August 21, 2003, the FCC issued the triennial review order in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision vacating the FCC's rules that had determined the UNEs that are required to be made available to competitors. 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, subject to an opportunity for state regulators to rebut this presumption before the FCC, which did not occur; (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), subject to an opportunity for state regulators to rebut this presumption of impairment; (iii) 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 were "grandfathered," and the requirement to allow line sharing will be phased out over a three-year period; (iv) ILECs are not required to provide CLECs with access to "next generation" networks and facilities used to provide broadband services to residential customers and multiple tenant buildings that are residential or predominately residential in nature; and (v) 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. 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. On June 16, 2004, the D.C. Circuit's decision became effective. As a result of the D.C. Circuit's decision, the FCC must conduct a rulemaking proceeding to adopt new unbundling rules for mass market switching, high capacity loops and dedicated transport, and other issues.

        On August 20, 2004, the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to replace the unbundling rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit. In addition, the FCC issued interim unbundling rules that "freeze" the unbundling obligations in the ILECs' interconnection agreements for six months, or until the FCC adopts permanent rules, if that occurs earlier. In response, certain ILECs, including us, filed a petition for mandamus requesting that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturn the interim rules. The petitioners argued that the interim unbundling rules are inconsistent with the court's decision vacating the triennial review order. On October 6, 2004, the D.C. Circuit held the ILECs' challenge in abeyance. On February 5, 2005, the FCC issued new unbundling rules to replace the unbundling rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit. The new rules: (i) eliminate the obligation for ILECs, such as Qwest, to provide access to switching as a UNE in order to serve mass market customers, subject to a transition period; (ii) eliminate the obligation to provide access to DS1 and DS3 loops as a UNE in any

10

building within the service area of a wire center that meets certain criteria established by the FCC, related to the size of, and number of collocators in the wire center, subject to a transition period; (iii) eliminate the obligation to provide access to DS1 and DS3 dedicated transport between any wire centers that meet certain criteria established by the FCC related to the size of, and number of collocators in the wire centers, subject to a transition period; and (iv) allow CLECs to convert special access circuits to UNEs or combinations of UNEs, as long as the CLECs meet applicable qualification requirements. The FCC's unbundling relief for DS1 and DS3 loops and dedicated transport will affect a small minority of Qwest's wire centers. The ILECs' mandamus petition is still pending before the D.C. Circuit. Apart from the FCC's unbundling rules, Qwest has entered into commercial arrangements to provide MCI, AT&T and numerous other CLECs with a product that is functionally equivalent to UNE-P at rates that are somewhat higher than the rate for UNE-P, and commercial arrangements to provide Covad Communications Company and other CLECs with a product that is functionally equivalent to, but somewhat higher priced than, UNE line sharing. According to the FCC's February 2005 order those arrangements will not be affected by the FCC's new unbundling rules.

        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.

Intercarrier Compensation and Access Pricing

        The FCC has initiated over the past five years a number of proceedings that do and will affect the rates and charges for access services and other forms of intercarrier compensation for 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 interrelated, and because new technologies (such as VoIP) are emerging that pose further complications, it will take some time for the rulemaking to be completed. Also, there has been a national trend towards reducing the amounts charged for use of our networks to terminate local, IntraLATA and other intrastate calls, in preference of 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 regulators that regulate intrastate access charges conduct proceedings that may affect the rates and charges for those services.

        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. In an associated Order, the FCC adopted interim rules requiring carriers to reduce their charges to other carriers for terminating ISP traffic over a 36 month period and placing limits on the number of such minutes for which charges could be assessed. On February 10, 2005, the FCC met and adopted a further notice of proposed rulemaking in the pending intercarrier compensation docket, requesting comment on seven specific plans for revision to the intercarrier compensation structure. The memorandum opinion and order analyzing these plans and formally requesting comment has not yet been released by the Commission.

11

        On October 18, 2004, in a related docket the FCC released an Order deciding to forbear from applying certain ISP reciprocal compensation interim rules adopted in the April 27, 2001 Order described above. Those particular interim rules related to the cap on the number of minutes of use and the requirement that carriers exchange ISP-bound traffic on a bill-and-keep basis if those carriers were not exchanging traffic pursuant to interconnection agreements prior to adoption of the April 27, 2001 Order. The effect of this Order may be to increase significantly our payments of reciprocal compensation. In some instances, existing state rules regarding reciprocal compensation and applicable interconnection agreements limit the effect of this Order. This order is currently pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

        AT&T has filed petitions with both the FCC and U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit requesting that ILEC special access rates be reduced and that ILEC special access flexibility be curtailed. Oral argument before the Court on AT&T's mandamus petition was held in November 2004. On January 31, 2005, the FCC released a memorandum opinion and order denying AT&T's requests for immediate reduction of access rates and suspension of the FCC's pricing flexibility rules. The memorandum opinion and order commenced a rulemaking to review all aspects of ILEC special access offerings.

        On July 19, 2004, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking commencing a narrow inquiry into access related Subscriber Line Charges (SLC) we may collect from certain end-users.

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 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.

        To date the FCC's rules related to wireline-to-wireless LNP have not had a significant impact on our access line losses, revenue or related costs. We believe the most significant impacts of wireline to wireless LNP were an increase in the operational costs of implementing LNP and the unfavorable impact on customer satisfaction due to technical difficulties with the porting process, both at Qwest and with other telecommunications providers. The FCC has a current proceeding to address whether the wireline porting interval (both to wireless and wireline providers) should be reduced.

Voice Over Internet Protocol

        On September 22, 2003, Vonage Holdings Corporation filed a petition for declaratory ruling requesting that the FCC preempt an order of the Minnesota Commission imposing regulations applicable to providers of telephone service on Vonage's DigitalVoice, an IP based voice service sold to retail customers. On November 12, 2004, the FCC released its unanimous decision finding that preemption of state telecommunication service regulation was consistent with federal law and policies intended to promote the continued development of the Internet, broadband and interactive services. The FCC further concluded that divergent state rules, regulations and licensing requirements could

12

impede the rollout of such services that benefit consumers by providing them with more choice, competition and innovation. On March 10, 2004, the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPR, instituting a formal rulemaking proceeding, or the IP-Enabled Services Proceeding, addressing many issues related to VoIP and other Internet services. This rulemaking raises issues that overlap, to a degree, with the rulemakings concerning ILEC Broadband Telecommunications Services and Intercarrier Compensation. There are a number of issues that have been presented to the FCC that concern VoIP and that could affect intercarrier compensation requirements and other federal or state requirements such as those that impose a fee to support "universal service" and programs that support the extension of telecommunications and Internet facilities to rural areas and to public schools and facilities in inner cities. The FCC has also stated that the question of whether such IP based services should be classified as an unregulated "information service" under the Communications Act or as telecommunications services will be addressed in this proceeding. The FCC will also address in this proceeding whether VoIP providers must pay carrier access charges or intercarrier compensation, whether they must contribute to the universal service fund, and other issues involving IP-enabled services, including access by disabled persons, applicability of law enforcement statutes and the provision of emergency (911) services. We are following these developments closely, as our network is capable of VoIP transport and other combinations of voice and 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 traditional local exchange access lines or local exchange services. This docket remains pending.

Operations, Installation and Maintenance

        On March 17, 2004, the FCC released an order eliminating the prohibition on shared network operations, installation and maintenance (OI&M) between BOCs and their long distance affiliates. The FCC put the prohibition in place in 1996 as part of its regulatory requirements implementing the Telecommunications Act. In its recent order the FCC concludes the OI&M prohibition is no longer appropriate because the costs outweigh the benefits and accounting safeguards and other restrictions are adequate to protect against competitive harm. On May 5, 2004, we filed with the FCC a revised cost allocation manual covering certain affiliate transactions permitted by the OI&M order. Consolidation of a number of network OI&M functions to improve efficiency and to reduce unnecessary duplication has since been implemented. QCII is continuing to aggressively evaluate how to best take further advantage of the elimination of the OI&M prohibition in a manner that increases efficiency, reduces costs and improves customer service.

Employees

        As of December 31, 2004, we employed approximately 29,000 people.

        Approximately 24,000 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 two-year collective bargaining agreements with the CWA and the IBEW. Among other things, these agreements provide for guaranteed wage levels and continuing employment-related benefits. Each of these agreements was ratified by union members and expires on August 13, 2005. We will seek to renegotiate these agreements in 2005.

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 SEC.

13

        QCII has adopted written codes of conduct that serve as the code of ethics applicable to our directors, officers and employees, including our principal executive officer and senior financial officers, in accordance with Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the rules of the SEC promulgated thereunder and the New York Stock Exchange rules. In the event that QCII makes any changes to, or provides any waivers from, the provisions of its codes of conduct, we intend to disclose these events on our website or in a report on Form 8-K within four business days of such event.

        These codes of conduct, as well as copies of QCII's guidelines on significant governance issues and the charters of QCII's audit committee, compensation and human resources committee and nominating and governance committee, are available on our website at www.qwest.com/about/investor/governance or in print to any stockholder who requests them by sending a written request to QCII's Corporate Secretary at Qwest Communications International Inc., 1801 California Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.

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 $42.9 billion and $42.7 billion at December 31, 2004 and 2003, 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

        QCII is involved in several legal proceedings to which we are not a party that, if resolved against QCII, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We have included below a discussion of these matters, together with a discussion of those matters to which we are a party (primarily those discussed below under the "Regulatory Matters" subheading, as well as the "Colorado action" described below). Only those matters to which we are a party represent contingencies for which we have recorded, or could reasonably anticipate recording, an accrual.

        Throughout this report, when we refer to a class action as "putative" it is because a class has been alleged, but not certified, in that matter. Until and unless a class has been certified by the court, it has not been established that the named plaintiffs represent the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent.

14

DOJ Investigation and Securities Actions

        The DOJ investigation and the securities actions described below present material and significant risks to QCII. The size, scope and nature of the restatements of QCII's consolidated financial statements for 2001 and 2000, which are described in QCII's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002, or QCII's 2002 Form 10-K/A, affect the risks presented by these investigations and actions, as these matters involve, among other things, QCII's prior accounting practices and related disclosures. Plaintiffs in certain of the securities actions have alleged QCII's restatement of items in support of their claims. We can give no assurance as to the impacts on our and QCII's financial results or financial condition that may ultimately result from all of these matters. During 2003 and 2004, QCII recorded reserves in its financial statements totaling $750 million in connection with these matters. On October 21, 2004, QCII entered into a settlement with the SEC concluding a formal investigation concerning QCII's accounting and disclosures, among other subjects, that began in April 2002. The $750 million reserve was reduced by $125 million in December 2004 as a result of a payment in that amount in connection with QCII's SEC settlement. The remaining reserve amount represents a final payment to be made in connection with the SEC settlement in the amount of $125 million and the minimum estimated amount of loss QCII believes is probable with respect to the securities actions described below.

        QCII has recorded its estimate of the minimum liability because no estimate of probable loss for these matters is a better estimate than any other amount. If the recorded reserve that will remain after QCII has paid the amount owed under the SEC settlement is insufficient to cover these other matters, QCII will need to record additional charges to its statement of operations in future periods. Additionally, QCII is unable at this time to provide a reasonable estimate of the upper end of the range of loss associated with these remaining matters due to their preliminary and complex nature, and, as a result, the amount QCII has reserved for these matters is its estimate of the lowest end of the possible range of loss. The ultimate outcomes of these matters are still uncertain and there is a significant possibility that the amount of loss QCII may ultimately incur could be substantially more than the reserve it has provided.

        At this time, QCII believes that it is probable that a portion of the recorded reserve for the securities actions will be recoverable from a portion of the insurance proceeds that 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 actions described below. The insurance proceeds are subject to claims by QCII and other insureds for, among other things, the costs of defending certain of these matters and, as a result, such proceeds are being depleted over time. In any event, the terms and conditions of applicable bylaws, certificates or articles of incorporation, or agreements or applicable laws may obligate us to indemnify our current and former directors, officers and employees with respect to certain liabilities, and we have been advancing legal fees and costs to many current and former directors, officers and employees in connection with the investigations, securities actions and certain other litigation.

        QCII continues to defend against the securities actions vigorously and is currently unable to provide any estimate as to the timing of the resolution of these actions. Any settlement of or judgment in one or more of these actions substantially in excess of QCII's recorded reserves could have a significant impact on QCII, and QCII can give no assurance that it will have the resources available to pay any such judgment. The magnitude of any settlement or judgment resulting from these actions could materially and adversely affect QCII's ability to meet its debt obligations and its financial condition, potentially impacting its credit ratings, its ability to access capital markets and its compliance with debt covenants. In addition, the magnitude of any such settlement or judgment may cause QCII to draw down significantly on its cash balances, which might force QCII to obtain additional financing or explore other methods to generate cash. Such methods could include issuing additional securities or

15

selling assets. As a wholly owned subsidiary of QCII, our business operations and financial condition would be similarly affected.

Investigations

        On July 9, 2002, QCII was informed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado of a criminal investigation of QCII's business. QCII believes the U.S. Attorney's Office is investigating various matters that include the transactions related to the various adjustments and restatements described in its 2002 Form 10-K/A, transactions between QCII and certain of its vendors and certain investments in the securities of those vendors by individuals associated with QCII, and certain prior disclosures made by QCII. QCII is continuing in its efforts to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney's Office in its investigation. However, QCII cannot predict the outcome of this investigation or the timing of its resolution.

        On October 21, 2004, QCII entered into a settlement with the SEC, concluding a formal investigation concerning its accounting and disclosures, among other subjects. Please see "Matters Resolved in the Fourth Quarter of 2004" below for a discussion of the SEC settlement. On February 22, 2005, QCII was notified by the General Services Administration, or GSA, that the GSA had determined not to pursue any administrative action against QCII based on the information contained in the administrative record. Accordingly, QCII is a presently responsible contractor eligible to compete for federal government business. Please see "Matter Resolved in the First Quarter of 2005" below for a discussion of the completed GSA review.

Securities Actions

        QCII is a defendant in the securities actions described below. Plaintiffs in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that QCII violated federal and state securities laws, engaged in fraud, civil conspiracy and negligent misrepresentation, and breached fiduciary duties owed to investors and current and former employees. Other defendants in one or more of these actions include current and former directors of QCII, former officers and employees of QCII, Arthur Andersen LLP, certain investment banks and others.

•

Consolidated securities action. Twelve putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of QCII between May 24, 1999 and February 14, 2002 have been consolidated into a consolidated securities action pending in federal district court in Colorado. The first of these actions was filed on July 27, 2001. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants issued false and misleading financial results and made false statements about QCII's business and investments, including making materially false statements in certain QCII registration statements. The most recent complaint in this matter seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. However, counsel for plaintiffs has indicated that the putative class will seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars.



•

ERISA action. Seven putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Qwest Savings and Investment Plan and predecessor plans, or the Plan, from March 7, 1999 until January 12, 2004 have been consolidated into a consolidated action in federal district court in Colorado. These suits also purport to seek relief on behalf of the Plan. QCII expects that an eighth action purportedly brought on behalf of the Plan will also be consolidated into the consolidated action. The first of these actions was filed in March 2002. Plaintiffs assert breach of fiduciary duty claims against QCII and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, alleging, among other things, various improprieties in managing holdings of QCII stock in the Plan assets. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and declaratory relief, along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution.

16

•

Colorado action. A putative class action purportedly brought 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 is pending in Colorado in the District Court for the County of Boulder. We are also a defendant in this action. This action was filed on June 27, 2002. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the 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. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of illegal gains and other relief.



•

New Jersey action. An action by the State of New Jersey (Treasury Department, Division of Investment), or New Jersey, is pending in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County. This action was filed on November 27, 2002. New Jersey alleges, among other things, that defendants caused QCII's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices by employing improper accounting practices and by issuing false statements about QCII's business, revenues and profits, and contends that it incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Among other requested relief, New Jersey seeks from the defendants, jointly and severally, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages.



•

CALSTRS action. An action by the California State Teachers' Retirement System, or CalSTRS, is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco. This action was filed on December 10, 2002. CalSTRS 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 QCII securities, and asserts that defendants' actions caused it to lose in excess of $150 million invested in QCII's equity and debt securities. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, special and punitive damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest and costs.



•

SURSI action. An action by the State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, or SURSI, is pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. This action was filed on January 10, 2003. SURSI alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in a scheme to falsely inflate QCII's revenues and decrease its expenses by improper conduct related to transactions with various customers and suppliers and claims that its losses from investments in QCII securities are in excess of $12.5 million. SURSI seeks, among other things compensatory and punitive damages, costs, equitable relief, including an injunction to freeze or prevent disposition of the defendants' assets, and disgorgement.



•

SPA action. An action by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, or SPA, is pending in federal district court in Colorado. This action was filed on February 9, 2004. SPA alleges, among other things, that defendants created a false perception of QCII's revenues and growth prospects and that its losses from investments in QCII securities are in excess of $100 million. SPA seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, rescission or rescissionary damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.



•

SHC action. An action by Shriners Hospital for Children, or SHC, is pending in federal district court in Colorado. This action was filed on March 22, 2004. SHC alleges, among other things, that defendants issued false and misleading financial reports about QCII. SHC alleges compensatory damages of approximately $17 million. SHC seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.



•

TRSL action. An action by the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, or TRSL, is pending in the federal district court in Colorado. This action was filed on or about March 30, 2004. TRSL alleges, among other things, that defendants issued false and misleading financial reports about QCII. TRSL alleges compensatory damages of approximately $23 million. TRSL seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

17

•

NYC Funds action. An action by a number of New York City pension and retirement funds, or NYC Funds, is pending in federal district court in Colorado. This action was filed on September 22, 2004. NYC Funds allege, among other things, that defendants created a false perception of QCII's revenues and growth prospects and that their losses from investments in QCII securities are in excess of $300 million. NYC Funds seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, rescission or rescissionary damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

KPNQwest Litigation

        A putative class action is pending in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York against QCII, certain of its former executives who were also on the supervisory board of KPNQwest (in which QCII was a major shareholder), and others. This lawsuit was initially filed on October 4, 2002 against Willem Ackermans, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of KPNQwest. The second amended complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers of KPNQwest securities, that, among other things, defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate KPNQwest revenue and the value of KPNQwest securities. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and/or rescission as appropriate against defendants, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

        On October 31, 2002, Richard and Marcia Grand, co-trustees of the R.M. Grand Revocable Living Trust, dated January 25, 1991, filed a lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court which, as amended, alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated state and federal securities laws and breached their fiduciary duty in connection with investments by plaintiffs in securities of KPNQwest. QCII is a defendant in this lawsuit along with Qwest B.V., Joseph Nacchio, QCII's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and John McMaster, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of KPNQwest. Plaintiffs claim to have lost approximately $10 million in their investments in KPNQwest.

        On June 25, 2004, J.C. van Apeldoorn and E.T. Meijer, in their capacities as trustees in the Dutch bankruptcy proceeding for KPNQwest, filed a complaint in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and breach of fiduciary duty and mismanagement under Dutch law. QCII is a defendant in this lawsuit along with Joseph Nacchio, Robert S. Woodruff, Qwest's former Chief Financial Officer, and John McMaster. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants' actions were a cause of the bankruptcy of KPNQwest and the bankruptcy deficit of KPNQwest was in excess of $3 billion. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

        On January 20, 2005, Citibank, N.A., Deutsche Bank AG London, ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and others notified QCII of their intent to file a complaint in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, that would allege, among other things, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and related aiding and abetting claims, in connection with the origination of a credit facility and subsequent borrowings made by KPNQwest of approximately €300 million under that facility. They have indicated that QCII would be a defendant in this threatened lawsuit along with Joseph Nacchio, John McMaster, Drake Tempest, QCII's former General Counsel, and other former employees of QCII or KPNQwest. Plaintiffs have indicated their intention to seek compensatory damages (including interest), statutory and punitive damages and an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

        The four KPNQwest litigation matters described above are in preliminary phases and QCII continues to defend against the three filed cases vigorously and will likewise defend against the fourth matter if it is filed. QCII has not yet conducted discovery on plaintiffs' possible recoverable damages and other relevant issues. Thus, QCII is unable at this time to estimate reasonably a range of loss that it would incur if the plaintiffs in one or more of these matters were to prevail. Any settlement or

18

judgment in certain of these matters 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 certain of these matters, QCII's financial condition and its ability to meet its debt obligations could be materially and adversely affected. As a wholly owned subsidiary of QCII, our business operations and financial condition would be similarly affected.

Regulatory Matters

        As described below, formal proceedings against us have been initiated with the public utilities commissions in several states alleging, among other things, that we, in contravention of federal and state law, failed to file interconnection agreements with the state commissions and that we therefore allegedly discriminated against various CLECs. The complainants seek fines, penalties and/or carrier credits.

•

Minnesota. On February 14, 2002, the Minnesota Department of Commerce filed a formal complaint against us with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. On November 1, 2002, the Minnesota Commission issued a written order finding against us. The Minnesota Commission's final, written decision was issued on May 21, 2003 and would require a penalty payment to the state of approximately $26 million and payments of carrier credits of approximately $18 million. Of the $18 million, about $3 million has been released by the carriers in bankruptcy proceedings. The Minnesota Commission, the carriers and Qwest each appealed portions of the decision to the federal district court in Minnesota, and the district court upheld the penalty and vacated the carrier credits. The Minnesota Commission, the carriers and Qwest each have appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.



•

Colorado. On April 15, 2004, Qwest and the Office of Consumer Counsel for Colorado entered into a settlement, subject to Colorado Commission approval, that would require Qwest to pay $7.5 million in contributions to state telecommunications programs and that offers CLECs credits that could total approximately $9 million. The administrative law judge recommended rejection of the settlement and the initiation of a show cause docket against Qwest. The administrative law judge's recommendation will come before the Commission on motions for reconsideration.



•

New Mexico. On April 29, 2004, the New Mexico Staff recommended penalties totaling $5.05 million. New Mexico CLECs have also requested carrier credits. In December 2004, QCII, the Staff, the New Mexico Attorney General and party-CLECs entered into and filed for approval a settlement that would resolve all claims for penalties and credits for a total payment of $3.5 million. On January 26, 2005, the administrative law judge certified and recommended approval of the proposed settlement.



•

Washington. On November 9, 2004, Qwest and the Staff of the Washington Commission entered into a settlement under which Qwest agreed to pay a penalty of $7.8 million. This settlement does not require Qwest to provide any credits to CLECs. On February 28, 2005, the Washington Commission entered an order approving the settlement and closing the docket.



•

Oregon. Oregon is considering a stipulation between Qwest and the Oregon Staff for the payment of a penalty of approximately $1 million.

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.

        The New Mexico state regulatory commission has opened a docket to investigate whether we are in compliance with or are likely to meet a commitment that we made in 2001 to invest in communications infrastructure in New Mexico. Multiple parties have filed comments in that docket and

19

variously argue that we should be subject to a range of requirements including an escrow account for capital spending, new investment obligations, and customer credits or price reductions. The ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain but could result in obligations or price changes that could be significant.

        To the extent appropriate we have provided reserves for the above matters. 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

        In January 2001, an amended class action complaint was filed in Denver District Court against QCII, certain former officers and certain current and former 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, a claim QCII denies. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $272 million plus interest, a constructive trust upon QCII's assets in the amount of the dividend, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the class, which was certified by the court on January 31, 2005.

        Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed on various dates in various courts against QCII on behalf of landowners in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. 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. 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 QCII's fiber optic cable in the right-of-way without their consent. 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 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. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. District court approval of a proposed nationwide settlement of all these matters (except those in Louisiana) was vacated by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2004. This ruling is subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

        On January 20, 2004, QCII filed a complaint in the District Court for the City and County of Denver against KMC Telecom LLC and several of its related parent or subsidiary companies (collectively, "KMC"). Subsequently, QCII filed an amended complaint to name additional defendants, including General Electric Capital Corporation ("GECC"), one of KMC's lenders, and GECC filed a complaint in intervention. QCII is seeking a declaration that a series of agreements with KMC and its lenders are not effective because conditions precedent were not satisfied and to recoup other damages and attorneys' fees and costs. These agreements would obligate QCII to pay a net incremental amount of approximately $105 million if determined to be effective. GECC and KMC have asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment and anticipatory breach of contract. GECC and KMC seek a declaration that the relevant agreements are in effect and claim monetary damages for anticipatory breach of the agreements and their attorneys' fees and costs.

        The Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, proposed a tax adjustment for tax years 1994 through 1996. The principal issue involves QCII's allocation of costs between long-term contracts with customers for

20

the installation of conduit or fiber optic cable and additional conduit or fiber optic cable retained by QCII. The IRS disputes QCII's allocation of the costs between it and third parties. Similar claims have been asserted against QCII with respect to the 1997 to 1998 and the 1998 to 2001 audit periods. The 1994-1996 claim is currently being litigated in the Tax Court and QCII does not believe the IRS will be successful although the ultimate outcome is uncertain. If QCII were to lose this issue for the tax years 1994 through 1998, QCII estimates it would have to pay $57 million plus interest pursuant to tax sharing agreements with the Anschutz Company relating to those time periods.

        In 2004, QCII recorded income tax expense of $158 million related to a change in the expected timing of deductions related to its tax strategy, referred to as the Contested Liability Acceleration Strategy ("CLAS"), which it implemented in 2000. CLAS is a strategy that sets aside assets to provide for the satisfaction of asserted liabilities associated with litigation in a tax efficient manner. CLAS accelerated deductions for contested liabilities by placing assets for potential litigation liabilities out of the control of the Company and into trusts managed by a third party trustee. In July 2004, QCII was formally notified by the IRS that it was contesting the CLAS tax strategy. Also in July 2004, in connection with the preparation of its financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, and as a result of a series of notices on CLAS strategies issued by the IRS and the receipt of legal advice with respect thereto, QCII adjusted its accounting for CLAS as required by SFAS No. 109. The change in expected timing of deductions caused an increase in QCII's liability for uncertain tax positions and a corresponding increase in its net operating loss carry-forwards ("NOLs"). Because QCII is not currently forecasting future taxable income sufficient to realize the benefits of this increase in its NOLs it recorded an increase in its valuation allowance on deferred tax assets as required by SFAS No. 109. Additionally, in September 2004 the IRS proposed a penalty of $37 million on this strategy. QCII believes that the imposition of a penalty is not appropriate as it acted in good faith in implementing this tax strategy in reliance on two contemporaneous tax opinions and adequately disclosed this transaction to the IRS in its initial and subsequent tax returns. QCII intends to vigorously defend its position on this and other tax matters.

Matters Resolved in the Fourth Quarter of 2004

        On October 21, 2004, QCII entered into a settlement with the SEC, concluding a formal investigation concerning its accounting and disclosures, among other subjects, that began in April 2002. In connection with this settlement, the SEC filed a complaint against QCII in federal district court in Denver, Colorado. The complaint alleges violations of several provisions of the federal securities laws, including the anti-fraud provisions, relating principally to its financial reporting and disclosures. QCII agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, to consent to the entry of a final judgment to be entered by the court. The final judgment, which was entered by the court on November 4, 2004, among other things, enjoins QCII from future violations of certain provisions of the securities laws and requires it to pay a civil money penalty of $250 million in two installments of $125 million each (the first of which was paid in December 2004 and the second of which must be paid by December 31, 2005), plus $1 as nominal disgorgement.

        The final judgment also requires QCII to maintain a Chief Compliance Officer with specified duties and to continue to cooperate with the SEC's ongoing investigation of individuals. At the time of the settlement, the SEC announced that the entire penalty amount would be distributed to investors pursuant to the Fair Fund provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. QCII anticipates that this distribution will occur under the supervision of the federal district court pursuant to a plan of d