Verizon agrees to offer $20 broadband in California to win Frontier merger approval

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,912   +58
Staff
Recap: Verizon's attempt to secure approval for its $9.6 billion takeover of Frontier Communications in California comes with significant conditions: a commitment to long-term, low-cost broadband for low-income households and additional investments in fiber and wireless infrastructure. The proposed deal, now under review by the California Public Utilities Commission, includes pricing rules and deployment requirements that go beyond what Frontier initially promised.

According to a joint motion filed by Verizon and the California Public Advocates Office, the telecommunications giant has agreed to offer two $20-per-month plans to eligible households. One option provides fiber-to-the-home service with symmetrical speeds of 300 Mbps, while the other offers fixed wireless access with download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps. Verizon would be required to keep these plans available for at least ten years.

The agreement also requires Verizon to explore increasing network speeds after three years while maintaining the $20 monthly price. These discounted plans could be combined with the California Lifeline subsidy, which provides $19 per month to qualifying households.

This combination would effectively make internet service free for eligible customers. Ernesto Falcon, a program manager with the Public Advocates Office, said his team pushed for Lifeline eligibility to ensure the affordability guarantee applies statewide.

Falcon noted that the arrangement goes beyond Frontier's original commitments. Verizon has agreed to install 75,000 new fiber-to-the-home connections across California, with a focus on serving low-income areas. In addition, the company committed to building 250 new cell sites to expand its 5G network footprint, adding wireless capacity and coverage throughout the state.

The settlement reflects a broader clash between state requirements and federal policy under the Trump administration. California lawmakers previously considered requiring internet providers to offer $15 monthly broadband plans for low-income users but abandoned the proposal after federal officials warned it could jeopardize access to $42 billion in federal broadband subsidies.

The merger review is further complicated by disputes over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr conditioned merger approvals for internet service providers on eliminating corporate DEI initiatives.

Verizon ended its programs in May to secure FCC clearance, but that decision conflicts with California's supplier diversity rules, which require reporting related to women, minorities, disabled veterans, and LGBTQ+ employees. The CPUC has pressed Verizon to present a plan for reconciling these obligations with state law. Falcon said resolving this conflict remains a key issue in the merger review.

California is not the first state to extract concessions from Verizon as part of the Frontier acquisition. Last week, Pennsylvania regulators approved a settlement guaranteeing $20 internet plans tied to federal Lifeline discounts for residents in Frontier's territory. That agreement includes a "most-favored nation" clause requiring Verizon to extend stronger commitments made in other states – such as those now proposed in California – to Pennsylvania customers as well.

Both the Pennsylvania and California settlements also require Verizon to conduct regular audits of Frontier's networks to identify and repair deficiencies in fiber and copper infrastructure.

Verizon Chief Financial Officer Anthony Skiadas told investors during the company's July earnings call that the transaction remains on track to close in early 2026. He said the company has already secured approvals from eight states, as well as clearance from the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice, and continues to negotiate with regulators in California and other jurisdictions.

Frontier, which has roughly three million customers across 25 states, agreed to the sale last year. Verizon's bid includes taking on more than $10 billion of Frontier's debt, in addition to a $9.6 billion cash payment.

Permalink to story:

 
“has agreed to offer two $20-per-month plans to eligible households. One option provides fiber-to-the-home service with symmetrical speeds of 300 Mbps, while the other offers fixed wireless access with download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps.”

There’s no way they don’t just offer fixed wireless for 97% of targeted customers. This is essentially the kinda-loophole that every telecom provider has used since we gave them billions of dollars upfront through Build Back Better (blech). It’s so much cheaper and far more expedient for them to just upgrade a few dozen cell towers versus laying potentially thousands of miles worth of fiber.
 
The rural areas in California seem to fit the most eligible communities for subsidized Internet. It’ll also be the most expensive to connect to fiber. Without government intervention, this is where Starlink would best compete.
 
I have ziplyfiber which I believe was originally verizonfios then frontier and then ziply.
They started very well but it did not last. I began to look for other options at 70 dollars a month.
They can offer 20-dollar service. But it will be 60 in a few years.
Funny how everything including fiber optic cables is getting cheaper only for home internet to get more expensive.
 
In my area, Frontier offers 200Mbps symmetric fiber for $29.99/mo on a 3-year contract. I subscribe to 500Mbps symmetric FTTH for $55/mo without a contract from another service.

Frontier seems desperate in my area. After months of Frontier sending direct mailings to my home advertising their "Deal," they then sent around a door-to-door salesperson trying to sell us the same thing. I politely declined.
If it's California it's gotta be bad
nothing good lasts in California
The monarchy has spoken.
 
Back