The net-90 payment notice was signed by Beverley Finnegan, Verizon’s Vice President of Strategic Sourcing, and Laure Bolla, Vice President of Finance Operations. When Verizon outlined its contractor commitments in the May FCC filing, Finnegan had been with Verizon for approximately eight months, having joined from Google, where she had served as head of international procurement. The contrast in timing and professional background further underscores the apparent disconnect between the policy commitments articulated in Washington and the procurement and finance directives now being communicated to vendors from Ireland.
Commentary — When Verizon submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on May 15, 2025, it appeared—on paper—to mark a meaningful shift in how the nation’s largest wireless carrier would treat the contractors responsible for building and maintaining its network.
Among the most significant commitments outlined in that filing was Verizon’s agreement to move to 30-day payment terms, a change framed as essential to sustaining a “healthy wireless ecosystem” and responsive to concerns raised by NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association.
Less than a year later, that commitment now appears at odds with reality.
A Promise That Lacks Clarity—and Conviction
The FCC letter states plainly: “Verizon agrees to use 30-day payment terms starting July 1.”
What it does not state is whether that commitment applies solely to NATE members or to the broader universe of Verizon contractors—many of whom have supported Verizon’s network builds for decades and face the same economic pressures that prompted NATE’s advocacy in the first place.
That ambiguity matters. The letter repeatedly references NATE, its leadership, and its members, yet stops short of clearly limiting the 30-day payment pledge to that group alone. Contractors reviewing the filing could reasonably read it as a broader policy shift—particularly since the underlying concerns cited by Verizon are not unique to any single trade association.
Meanwhile, Vendors Are Told to Prepare for Net-90
Compounding the confusion, Verizon vendors have since received a separate notice announcing that standard payment terms will move to net 90 days, effective February 2026, along with a revised twice-monthly payment cadence.
The contrast is difficult to ignore. A formal representation to U.S. regulators describes accelerated payment as a corrective measure, while a subsequent operational notice informs vendors that payments will, in fact, take substantially longer.
Washington and Ireland Appear to Be Operating on Different Pages
What is most striking is not merely the policy reversal, but the apparent organizational disconnect behind it. The FCC filing was authored and submitted by Verizon’s U.S.-based regulatory leadership in Washington, while the net-90 notification originated from senior sourcing and finance executives based in Ireland.
Viewed together, the documents suggest that Verizon’s regulatory commitments in Washington are not being consistently translated into operational policy by its global finance and procurement functions in Ireland. For contractors, the result is confusion over which version of Verizon policy governs their work—and whether representations made to federal regulators meaningfully influence day-to-day contracting practices.
Why Net-90 Is Not a Neutral Policy Choice
For wireless contractors, 90-day payment terms are not a minor inconvenience—they are structurally destabilizing.
Extended payment cycles force contractors to finance payroll, materials, equipment, insurance, compliance costs, and subcontractors long after work is completed and accepted. In effect, carriers shift working-capital requirements downstream, turning contractors into an interest-free bank.
Industry analysts have long observed that carriers save many millions of dollars annually by stretching payment terms. Those savings come directly at contractors’ expense—at a time when margins are already compressed by matrix pricing, inflation, and rising safety and compliance costs.
More Than Payments Remain Unresolved
According to Wireless Estimator’s industry resources, the uncertainty surrounding payment terms is only part of the picture. In addition to the 30-day payment commitment, several other reforms outlined in Verizon’s FCC letter—covering pricing practices, MSA provisions, and operational changes—have not been fulfilled as described.
That gap reinforces contractor skepticism that regulatory assurances alone are sufficient to drive real change inside carrier organizations.
A Broader Credibility Question
Given the growing divergence between Verizon’s regulatory commitments and its operational directives, the company now needs to publicly and transparently address its position on the progress of the commitments announced in May, including which have been implemented, which remain unresolved, and how those commitments are being applied across its contractor base.
For an industry that quite literally builds the nation’s wireless backbone, that uncertainty is not sustainable. And it raises a question regulators and contractors alike may now be asking: If a 30-day payment pledge cannot survive the distance between Washington and Ireland, what confidence should contractors place in the rest of the promises that accompanied it—or whether they should instead consider doing business with other carriers that appear more accommodating to the realities contractors face?
–Craig Lekutis, Editor
