(17) Commitments and Contingencies : ? Although from time to time we make short-term purchasing commitments to vendors with respect to capital expenditures, we generally do not enter into firm, written contracts for such activities. ? In 2015, Frontier accepted the FCCs CAF Phase II offer in 29 states, which provides $332 million in annual support through 2020 in return for the companys commitment to make broadband available to approximately 774,000 locations within Frontiers footprint. The CAF Phase II program is intended to provide long-term support for carriers for establishing and providing broadband service with at least 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream speeds in high-cost unserved or underserved areas. CAF Phase II support is a successor to the approximately $198 million in annual USF frozen high-cost support that Frontier used to receive prior to CAF II. In addition to the annual support levels, these amounts also include frozen support phasedown amounts in states where the annual CAF II funding is less than the prior annual frozen high-cost support funding. Frontiers frozen high-cost phasedown support is expected to be $6 million in 2018. In August 2018 , the FCC concluded its Connect America Fund Phase II auction to award $200 million in funding over ten years in areas where its original offer of support in 2015 was not accepted by carriers. The results of the Phase II auction have no impact on Frontiers current $332 million in CAF Phase II support. Frontier did participate in this auction and the amount won is immaterial to results. ? In September 2018, Frontier filed applications to be eligible to bid in two upcoming FCC spectrum auctions: Auction 101 (28 GHz) and Auction 102 (24 GHz). Auction 101, scheduled to start on November 14, 2018, will offer two 425 MHz licenses in 1,536 counties, and Auction 102, scheduled to start after the conclusion of Auction 101, will offer seven 100 MHz licenses in 416 Partial Economic Areas. Frontier cannot say to what extent it will participate, if at all, and cannot predict to what level it would be successful in either auction . On April 20, 2017, the FCC issued an Order that significantly altered how Commercial Data Services are regulated. Specifically, the Order adopted a test to determine, on a county-by-county basis, whether price cap ILECs, like Frontiers DS1 and DS3 services, will continue to be regulated. The test resulted in deregulation in a substantial number of our markets and is allowing Frontier to offer its DS1 and DS3 services in a manner that better responds to the competitive marketplace and allows for commercial negotiation. The areas that remain regulated may be subject to price fluctuations depending upon the price cap formula that year. Multiple parties appealed the Order in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued a ruling August 28, 2018, which upheld the vast majority of the FCCs decision easing regulation of business data services of internet service providers and vacated and remanded one piece of the Order back to the FCC. On October 10, 2018, the FCC filed a Motion to Stay the Courts Decision. Frontier cannot predict the extent to which these regulatory changes could affect revenues at this time. ? On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontiers offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. We dispute the allegations in the complaint described above and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. In addition, shareholders have filed derivative complaints on behalf of the Company in Connecticut, California, and Delaware courts. The derivative complaints are based, generally, on the same facts asserted in the consolidated class action complaint and allege against current and former officers and directors of the Company (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims for disseminating false and misleading information to shareholders, failure to manage internal controls, and failure to oversee and manage the company; (ii) unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets claims; and (iii) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for the false and misleading statements. We also dispute the allegations in the derivative complaints described above and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. Given that all of these matters are in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result. ? In addition, w e are party to various other legal proceedings (including individual, class and putative class actions as well as governmental investigations) arising in the normal course of our business covering a wide range of matters and types of claims including, but not limited to, general contracts, billing disputes, rights of access, taxes and surcharges, consumer protection, trademark and patent infringement, employment, regulatory, tort, claims of competitors and disputes with other carriers. Such matters are subject to uncertainty and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable. However, we believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. ? We accrue an expense for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable , and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. None of our existing accruals for pending matters, after considering insurance coverage, is material. We monitor our pending litigation for the purpose of adjusting our accruals and revising our disclosures accordingly, when required. Litigation is, however, subject to uncertainty, and the outcome of any particular matter is not predictable. We will vigorously defend our interests in pending litigation, and as of this date, we believe that the ultimate resolution of all such matters, after considering insurance coverage or other indemnities to which we are entitled, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or our cash flows . ? In October 2013, the California Attorney Generals Office notified certain Verizon companies, including one of the subsidiaries that we acquired in the CTF Acquisition, of potential violations of California state hazardous waste statutes primarily arising from the disposal of electronic components, batteries and aerosol cans at certain California facilities. We are cooperating with this investigation. We have accrued an amount for potential penalties that we deem to be probable and reasonably estimated, and we do not expect that any potential penalties, if ultimately incurred, will be material in comparison to the established accrual. ? ?