61.40 +0.23 (0.38%)
Pre-market: 4:41AM EST
|Bid||61.10 x 900|
|Ask||61.45 x 1800|
|Day's range||61.10 - 61.63|
|52-week range||52.28 - 61.63|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.48|
|PE ratio (TTM)||15.72|
|Earnings date||30 Jan 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||2.46 (4.02%)|
|1y target est||61.63|
Verizon Communications (VZ) closed the most recent trading day at $61.08, moving -0.24% from the previous trading session.
Frontier (FTR) collaborates with Neustar to thwart robocalls with the deployment of latest technology solutions for protecting consumers from malicious telephonic scams.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. are in court dueling with a group of state attorneys general over whether their merger will be harmful to consumers, even though it shouldn’t even be a debate. In what possible scenario would removing a low-cost rival from an already highly concentrated industry not have a negative effect on competition?The wireless carriers are contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to make the illogical argument that their merger will instead benefit customers — and somehow it’s working. Antitrust authorities appointed by President Donald Trump accepted this rationale with a straight face: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, led by Ajit Pai, and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, led by Makan Delrahim, each gave its blessing to the deal in recent months on the condition that the two companies make some painless concessions. Now, in a last line of legal defense and an unusual turn for such transactions, the matter is being tried in a case brought by plaintiffs Letitia James of New York and 13 other attorneys general. They are arguing that the remedies don’t go far enough to address the antitrust violations. They don’t, and yet there’s no telling which way this trial will go. Competition between T-Mobile and Sprint during the last few years resulted in lower plan prices for wireless customers, even putting pressure on industry leaders Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. It’s how unlimited data offerings came about. Without Sprint in the mix, this healthy competitive spirit is diminished. No acrobatics of economic modeling can camouflage this fact, and still the facts are in dispute. How very 2019.Text messages from 2017 between Roger Sole, Sprint’s head of marketing, and its then-CEO Marcelo Claure (who is now executive chairman) were revealed on Monday, the first day of the trial. As the two companies were negotiating the deal, Sole wrote to Claure that the combined entity could generate $5 more from each subscriber per month, and that the consolidation would even provide a boon to AT&T and Verizon. Sole may have been just spit-balling, and the state attorneys have a stronger case than to put too much stock in some gotcha private texts. Still, the conversation strongly suggests that greater pricing power was absolutely a motivation for the transaction, and it’s naive of anyone to think otherwise. T-Mobile and Sprint have agreed not to raise prices for three years, which is the blink of an eye in the business world and further demonstrates that the company’s goal is to eventually do so. Three years also conveniently brings the company to the point at which there may be little room left for cost-cutting, and so it will need to look to other ways to boost growth and margins. That’s if there aren’t loopholes in the agreement that it can exploit sooner. As well-liked as the gregarious T-Mobile CEO John Legere is — and as admirable as his track record is in fostering industry innovation — his personal promise that the company won’t take advantage of newfound pricing power should carry little weight. He won’t even be there to see it through. There are other business benefits beyond the ability to raise prices. For one, Sprint is a financially challenged company with a tarnished brand that is struggling to compete against its larger rivals. Selling to T-Mobile, which is on far healthier footing, would be good news for frustrated shareholders, such as Masayoshi Son of SoftBank Group Corp., the Japanese conglomerate that controls Sprint. The companies would also get to combine their spectrum assets and join forces on building a nationwide 5G wireless network.The U.S. needs to be competitive in 5G, but waving the American flag and trying to put the fear of China into regulators isn’t a legitimate defense against antitrust enforcement. Plus, it’s hard to see how blocking the merger would set the nation back — both companies are investing in 5G regardless. As for the notion that T-Mobile is preserving competition by rescuing Sprint before it potentially goes belly-up, it just doesn’t hold water because other bidders are probably out there. While companies like Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc. may be seen as the Big Bad Cable Guys, either one owning Sprint would still maintain a four-carrier market, whereas T-Mobile’s deal wouldn’t.One of the remedies sought by the DOJ was to allow satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. access to the T-Mobile network while Dish builds its own. But Dish is a long, long ways from ever replacing Sprint. The DOJ’s lax stance on this deal would also seem to contradict the concerns it recently raised about anti-competitive business practices in the tech world, where immense market power is wielded by so few players.In the book “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn make the case that the U.S. has an oligopoly problem — that is, industries have become too concentrated to the detriment of consumers and workers, in large thanks to anti-competitive mergers. My colleague John Authers, who runs the Bloomberg book club, and I will be discussing this with the authors in a live chat on Wednesday at 11 a.m. New York time. It’s a timely conversation as the T-Mobile-Sprint situation plays out. Terminal subscribers can join us at TLIV and send comments or questions to email@example.com.There’s more to come in the trials and tribulations of Sprint’s unending quest to merge with T-Mobile. But whatever headlines emerge from the courtroom, this fact won’t change: A merger means market power will be concentrated in fewer hands.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tara Lachapelle is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of entertainment and telecommunications, as well as broader deals. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
TELUS (TU) showcases its call-authentication technology for Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and Federal Communications Commission to thwart robocalls.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Berkshire Hathaway, Verizon Communications, Accenture, General Electric and American Tower
Leveraging 5G Ultra Wideband network, Verizon (VZ) partners with Sony to promote next-gen live sports viewing experience with excellent wireless connectivity, low-latency and high-definition video.
While T-Mobile (TMUS) launches nationwide 5G network, Verizon (VZ) collaborates with Amazon's cloud computing arm, Amazon Web Services, for 5G edge computing.
(Bloomberg) -- Huawei Technologies Co. has sued the Federal Communications Commission, seeking to overturn a regulatory decision that will hurt the Chinese corporation’s business with its last major American clients.China’s largest technology company by sales said it has filed a lawsuit with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the American agency’s decision to bar the use of federal subsidies by rural carriers purchasing its equipment. Huawei complained it wasn’t accorded due process and was unfairly labeled a national security threat.The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Huawei to fight American sanctions and curbs that threaten the world’s largest networking business. Huawei, which the White House accuses of aiding Beijing in espionage, is stepping up a worldwide legal and publicity campaign to protest what it deems unfair treatment by the U.S. and its allies. It’s turned increasingly to courts to fight a plethora of issues from alleged defamation to American network restrictions.“The U.S. is great because it embraces openness, inclusiveness and the rule of law,” Chief Legal Officer Song Liuping told reporters at a briefing in Shenzhen on Thursday. “If it abuses its power, the ultimate loser may be itself.”FCC representatives weren’t immediately available for comment outside of normal business hours.Read more: Huawei Sues U.S. Over Equipment Ban, Escalating Legal ClashHuawei has initiated a number of high-profile legal actions to defend its business and reputation overseas. In March, the company brought the U.S. government to court in Texas, arguing a provision in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that barred it from certain networks violated the U.S. Constitution. It also filed defamation claims in Paris last month over claims made on TV about its alleged ties with the Chinese government, something the company has repeatedly denied. Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei chief financial officer who faces potential extradition to the U.S. for alleged fraud, has also sued the Canadian authorities for wrongful detention.Even as Huawei fights to safeguard its reputation abroad, it may be facing a public backlash back home. This week, news that it had reported an employee to police who was subsequently detained for 251 days -- then released without charges -- sparked a social media furor against the company’s infamously demanding work environment. Local media reported the longtime employee had sought severance pay upon dismissal over unspecified reasons, but was then detained on extortion charges. “We are obligated to report to the authorities if we find any suspicious or unlawful acts,” Song said Thursday, saying he had nothing more to add.The backlash stood in stark contrast to the consistent support Huawei has enjoyed at home since it ended up in Washington’s cross-hairs. Huawei is considered a central facet of sensitive U.S.-Chinese negotiations intended to defuse trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies. The Trump administration however has said issues related to the company won’t be included in any potential deal and is a separate process.The FCC’s move comprises one aspect of a broader campaign to contain a Chinese national champion Washington views with suspicion. In May, the White House placed Huawei on a blacklist that prohibited the sale of American software and circuitry. It’s so far defied those curbs -- reporting hyper-growth in quarterly sales and smartphone shipments -- but expects Washington’s ban to erase $10 billion in 2019 revenue. That’s down from the $30 billion Huawei’s billionaire founder, Ren Zhengfei, previously feared.The U.S. market itself has shrunk in importance in past years for Huawei. The country’s biggest telecom carriers, including AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., barely buy any of its gear and dropped plans to sell Huawei phones last year under pressure from the U.S. government. Huawei still maintains business ties with a number of small American carriers serving rural areas.(Updates with comments from a press briefing from fourth paragraph)To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Gao Yuan in Beijing at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Elstrom at email@example.com, Edwin ChanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The bills — which contained names, addresses and phone numbers, and many included call histories — were collected as part of an offer to allow cell subscribers to switch to Sprint, according to Sprint-branded documents found on the server. The documents explained how the cell giant would pay for the subscriber's early termination fee to break their current cell service contract, a common sales tactic used by cell providers. In some cases we found other sensitive documents, such as a bank statement, and a screenshot of a web page that had subscribers' online usernames, passwords and account PINs — which in combination could allow access to a customer's account.
Verizon (VZ) collaborates with Amazon Web Services to create an enhanced cloud computing technology for enterprise customers by deploying ultra-low latency applications at the edge of the 5G network.
Amazon and Verizon are teaming up to deliver 5G Edge Cloud Computing, bringing the processing power and storage closer to 5G users and wireless devices at faster speeds and ultra-low latency.
Just as Qualcomm was starting to highlight its 5G plans for the coming years, Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg hit the stage at AWS re:Invent to discuss the carrier’s team up with the cloud computing giant. As part of Verizon’s (TechCrunch’s parent company, disclosure, disclosure, disclosure) upcoming focus on 5G edge computing, the carrier will be the first to use the newly announced AWS Wavelength. Currently, it’s being piloted in Chicago with a handful of high-profile partners, including the NFL and Bethesda, the game developer behind Fallout and Elder Scrolls.
Dec.03 -- Hans Vestberg, Verizon Communications Inc. chief executive officer, discusses teaming up with Amazon.com Inc.'s cloud services division to offer a 5G service. He speaks with Bloomberg's Romaine Bostick and Scarlet Fu on "Bloomberg Markets: The Close."