“`html
Verizon Secures Partial California Approval for Frontier deal, Mandates $20 Broadband
California regulators have reached a partial settlement with Verizon, paving the way for its acquisition of Frontier Communications while simultaneously requiring the telecom giant to offer $20-per-month broadband service to low-income residents for the next decade. The agreement, reached after scrutiny of the proposed merger’s public interest benefits, ensures it aligns with the needs of the public. The settlement requires Verizon to not only offer affordable broadband options but also to bolster its fiber buildout plans, addressing concerns about equitable access to high-speed internet.
Under the terms of the agreement, Verizon will be obligated to launch at least two affordable broadband plans within six months of the deal’s closure – one utilizing its Fios fiber network and another leveraging fixed wireless access (FWA) technology. These plans will come with minimum speed requirements: fiber service must deliver at least 300/300 Mbps symmetrical speeds, while FWA will need to provide “approximately 100/20 Mbps or greater,” with some exceptions.
According to a program manager at the CPUC’s Communications and Broadband Policy Branch, the requirement is designed to align with the state’s Lifeline program, effectively making broadband free for eligible low-income Californians.
Verizon anticipates building at least 1 million new fiber optic connections annually, a figure that will be augmented by the settlement’s mandate to construct an additional 75,000 passings and 250 new fixed wireless towers specifically within California. The $20/month affordability requirement will remain in effect for 10 years following the Frontier deal’s completion, currently projected for early 2026. Furthermore, Verizon will be expected to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to increase speeds for low-income customers utilizing both Fios and FWA after three years.
The settlement represents a form of broadband rate regulation,a contentious issue within the telecommunications industry.Industry groups like ACA Connects, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, and USTelecom have voiced opposition to similar legislation, such as New york’s Affordable Broadband Act, arguing that price controls could stifle investment in broadband infrastructure.
The California ruling also presents potential conflicts with the revised guidelines of the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD)
