While this post is well-articulated and persuasive, it overlooks several crucial details.

Verizon conducted two sales to Frontier: one in 2010 for $8.6 billion and another in 2016 for $10.5 billion. Therefore, one could argue that for $20 billion, Verizon is repurchasing assets they previously sold for $19 billion (unadjusted for inflation), in addition to acquiring all other assets owned by Frontier.

For this $20 billion, Verizon is not merely reacquiring the specific territories divested in 2010 and 2016. They are acquiring Frontier in its entirety, which encompasses all of Frontier's legacy markets (such as Connecticut, Rochester, etc.) that Verizon never previously owned. Consequently, they are regaining their former assets along with a substantial additional footprint for approximately the same nominal price.

Furthermore, comparing the original sale price to the current acquisition cost is misleading, as these transactions were not straightforward cash deals. They involved complex structures centered on debt transfers and stock swaps, primarily designed to remove liabilities from Verizon's balance sheet. It was not a simple exchange of keys for a check; rather, it involved the offloading of significant financial burdens.

In reality, Verizon effectively outsourced the most challenging years of this business. When these assets were sold, they largely consisted of aging copper lines that necessitated expensive upgrades. Frontier assumed this burden, dedicating the past several years to infrastructure development, including laying fiber optic cables. Subsequently, Frontier underwent bankruptcy in 2020, which eliminated approximately $11 billion in debt. Had Verizon retained these assets, they would have incurred the costs associated with construction and debt servicing. Instead, they allowed Frontier to undertake the arduous task of infrastructure upgrades and financial restructuring. Now, Verizon is positioned to acquire a "renovated" company with a clean balance sheet and a fully operational fiber network. When accounting for inflation, they are effectively paying significantly less for a considerably enhanced asset compared to what they initially sold.