37.74 -0.01 (-0.03%)
After hours: 4:39PM EST
|Bid||37.75 x 1100|
|Ask||37.74 x 3200|
|Day's Range||37.69 - 37.93|
|52 Week Range||26.80 - 39.70|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.61|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||16.92|
|Earnings Date||Jan. 29, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||2.04 (5.43%)|
|1y Target Est||38.71|
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission prohibited the use of federal subsidies to buy telecommunications equipment made by a pair of Chinese companies deemed a security threat and said it would consider requiring carriers now using the products to remove them.With a 5-0 vote on Friday, the agency declared the equipment by the companies, Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp., ineligible to receive funding from the subsidy program that’s used mainly by small, rural carriers.“Given the threats posed by Huawei and ZTE to America’s security and our 5G future, this FCC will not sit idly by and hope for the best,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.He said China requires both companies to cooperate with intelligence agencies, and “have engaged in conduct like intellectual property theft, bribery, and corruption.”The move came as security for fast 5G communications networks draws increased attention in Washington. Lawmakers this week asked the Trump administration to appoint a senior leader for communications matters, and a group of senators objected to recent Commerce Department steps to ease restrictions on Huawei that had been announced in May.Supporters of the FCC ban say the time is right to impose restrictions as the industry begins installing infrastructure for 5G, a next-generation network that could enable a profusion of applications including autonomous vehicles and connected homes and factories.How Huawei Became a Target for Governments: QuickTakeBecause there could be billions of connected devices on 5G, fears have been raised that so many points of vulnerability could be exploited by bad actors. The government is wary of employing foreign technology for vital communications for fear that the manufacturers could leave a backdoor that enables outsiders to access information, or that the companies themselves would hand over sensitive data to their home governments.Attorney General William Barr in a Nov. 13 letter backed the FCC’s proposal, saying it was needed to protect national security.Huawei denies it’s a security threat, and has argued the FCC’s measures will hurt small carriers in rural areas. In a June filing, the company told the FCC that targeting specific vendors isn’t a sufficient step to ensure that telecommunications gear is secure, and may also violate international trade obligations.Huawei called the FCC’s action unlawful and said the agency had acted “on selective information, innuendo, and mistaken assumptions.”“These unwarranted actions will have profound negative effects on connectivity for Americans in rural and underserved areas across the United States,” Huawei said in an emailed statement.“Huawei has remained open to engaging with the U.S. government to verify productive solutions to safeguard U.S. telecommunications systems. Huawei would never breach its customers’ trust,” the company said.President Donald Trump has backed the spread of fast 5G networks, and said in a Thursday tweet he had asked for help from Apple Inc.’s chief executive officer, Tim Cook, in building the U.S. networks.“We do not have a coordinated national strategy in place for 5G—and we need one,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat. She called for research into secure networks, and more vetting of devices to ensure they’re not vulnerable to exploitation.USTelecom, a trade group of broadband service providers, applauded the FCC action and agreed that a comprehensive effort to secure the nation’s network is needed.“Let’s be clear: a cohesive national policy on supply chain requires a ‘whole of government’ approach, which the FCC has appropriately embraced,” the organization, whose members include AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., said in a statement.The FCC action formalizes its proposal last year to bar the use of U.S. telecommunications subsidies to buy from companies that pose a national security threat.Small carriers have said a ban would deny them good, cheap equipment used to offer broadband in remote areas. They asked the FCC to make clear they would be able to maintain existing equipment until it can be replaced and destroyed.The FCC proposed setting up a program to reimburse the costs of replacing the gear, and estimated the expense at $160 million to $960 million, according to its order prepared for Friday’s meeting.Separately, Congress is considering legislation to help small carriers purge their networks of parts from Huawei and ZTE. A House bill would provide $1 billion, and a Senate measure offers $700 million, according to a summary distributed by FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks.(Updates with Huawei statement in 10th paragraph.)\--With assistance from Jenny Leonard.To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at firstname.lastname@example.org, Wendy BenjaminsonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
AT&T's (T) 5G+ technology uses millimeter wave spectrum to provide ultra-fast speed, lower latency and better connectivity in mobile devices.
Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica has struck a deal to use some of U.S. rival AT&T's infrastructure in Mexico, a move analysts said would better position both to compete with the market's juggernaut, billionaire Carlos Slim's America Movil. Under the agreement announced on Thursday, Telefonica will use AT&T's [TATTC.UL] wireless 'last-mile' equipment - the final link of telecom networks that delivers service to consumers through towers, antennas and fiber-optic cables. Analysts framed the deal as a lifeline for Telefonica in Mexico, where the company has long struggled to gain traction.
Dell's (DELL) third-quarter fiscal 2020 results are expected to reflect its dominant position in the enterprise IT solutions market and PC market share gain.
Keysight's (KEYS) fiscal fourth-quarter results are likely to reflect robust adoption of electronic design and test instrumentation systems amid concerns over Huawei blacklisting and trade war.
Accomplishing the financial cushion to retire early is a fantasy for most, but bringing that fantasy to reality is not as difficult as it sounds. If you are willing to make some serious lifestyle adjustments, it can be achievable.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The latest buzz in Hollywood is that the U.S. Justice Department wants to abolish an outdated rule known as the Paramount consent decree, which would allow studio giants to own movie theaters — something that hasn’t been permitted since the 1940s. My first thought was that it's a bit of a nothingburger. Studios like Warner Bros. and Universal probably aren’t eager to scoop up debt-laden cinema operators when their top priority is investing in streaming-TV content and services. And while mom-and-pop theaters may fear the change will breed anti-competitive behavior, that’s not as big of a concern for the big multiplex chains, nor does it signal an end to antitrust oversight. But that doesn’t mean everything is hunky-dory in the industry.Take a look at the U.S. box office this year. The content uniformity aside — four of the top seven movies descended from comic books, and the other three from cartoon franchises — most of the year’s leading films are Walt Disney Co. productions. There are more to come, with “Frozen 2” set to hits theaters on Friday, followed by the December release of “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.” It has me wondering, is this healthy? Disney films account for nearly a third of the $9.5 billion of cinema tickets sold so far in 2019. Warner Bros., owned by AT&T Inc., lags far behind with a 16% share, trailed by Comcast Corp.’s Universal and Sony Corp.’s namesake distribution business; 20th Century Fox would normally be high in the ranking, too, but Disney acquired it earlier this year as part of an $85 billion deal with Rupert Murdoch.Look, I get it. Lots of people love Disney’s Marvel and animated features, and the box office is simply reflecting that. The situation is more complicated than just looking at the data and determining that the company has too much power; there’s nothing about the industry structurally that would give it an unfair advantage. Disney has just done a really good job of consistently giving fans what they want, and CEO Bob Iger made a series of smart acquisitions that continue to pay off: Pixar in 2006; Marvel in 2009; and Lucasfilm (home of “Star Wars”) in 2012. They’ve all absolutely flourished within Disney, with each bringing with it beloved franchises and story lines just waiting to be further developed and amplified for the big screen.It’s not like Warner Bros., Universal and Sony haven’t had the same opportunities. Warner Bros. has DC Comics, “Harry Potter” and “Lord of the Rings,” and the studio shares a home with HBO and “Game of Thrones.” Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man; it even had the chance to buy the entire Marvel roster in the late 1990s (for pennies compared to what Disney paid). It's hard, though, to imagine Marvel would have become what it is today had it landed at Sony instead of Disney. And that’s kind of my point.Matthew Ball, the former Amazon Studios executive, made a similar argument recently: “Disney isn’t a monopoly,” he tweeted Nov. 5. “Its competitors just need to do better. ... You make success. No one believed in comics being huge 20 years ago.”It's conceivable that Disney may end up atop the streaming world, too. Apple TV+ hasn't lived up to the hype, while AT&T’s HBO Max may suffer for its delayed arrival to the market (in May 2020). In very Comcast fashion, the cable giant isn’t so much plunging into streaming as it is dipping a toe into the waters with its Peacock app next year. And Sony’s PlayStation Vue service has already thrown in the towel. Meanwhile, Disney+ had a wildly successful launch on Nov. 12, signing up 10 million subscribers on the first day, despite widespread technological glitches and shortcomings in app functionality. Disney is also the first to experiment with bundles, a relic of the cable-TV market that I’ve argued will help ease one of the worst consumer pain points of streaming: the inability to access all your favorite content through a single subscription.But when people are rooting for Disney to be the “Netflix killer,” they’re rooting against themselves. Netflix Inc.’s innovation brought us affordable TV entertainment that didn't require a cable subscription or patience for commercial breaks. Its success forced other more complacent companies to rethink their businesses. By contrast, the box office shows what happens when a single company winds up with outsize influence.The Justice Department’s move to terminate the Paramount consent decree may not mean much (Disney wasn’t even one of the studios bound by it). But Disney doesn’t need to buy a theater anyway — it already owns the box office. Other media and tech giants should take that as a warning to step up their streaming game. Healthy competition ensures better content, more choice and further Netflix-like advances. Plus, the world needs only so many superhero flicks.To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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.
Netflix, once the disruptor on the streaming scene, has become the ultimate incumbent. Now competitors like Apple and Disney are challenging its binge-watching model.
“The issue there is that people tend to use the same password on multiple sites,” Alex Hamerstone, TrustedSec’s GRC practice lead, told Yahoo Finance.
In the third quarter, global dividends hit a record, but the annual growth has decelerated sharply, signaling that "a marked slowdown is under way."
Verizon (VZ) launches 5G Ultra Wideband Network services in Boston to promote next-gen connectivity by leveraging high throughput, ultra-low latency and massive capacity.
(Bloomberg) -- Some customers who signed up for Walt Disney Co.’s new Disney+ streaming service have seen their usernames and passwords sold online to third parties and have been locked out of their newly opened accounts.Disney said its system hasn’t been hacked and that it’s working to quickly address the issue. It’s possible that hackers obtained the names and passwords from data breaches at other companies.“Disney takes the privacy and security of our users’ data very seriously, and there is no indication of a security breach on Disney+,” the company said in a statement.Disney+ is the company’s effort to build a direct connection to consumers, as many people shift to watching movies and shows on demand rather than on cable and satellite TV. The $7-a-month service launched a week ago and quickly signed up more than 10 million customers, a number far exceeding predictions.Still, the debut was marred by many complaints from customers who couldn’t log on or had trouble watching programs. But the number of gripes collected by the website Downdetector has dropped sharply over the past week and now amounts to just a few dozen.Growing ExposureSpeaking at the Code Media conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Disney’s direct-to-consumer chief blamed the initial troubles on faulty coding in the app that the company is working to fix. Kevin Mayer said Disney executives were “very surprised” by the number of people who subscribed.The sign-up process was complicated, he said, because some customers already had subscriptions to Disney services such as Hulu and wanted to add the new one. Many customers also forgot they already has Disney accounts.“Not only was it huge demand, but the complexity,” Mayer said. “If you were a current subscriber, how does it work? Those were legitimate questions.”While Disney has long collected customers’ names and passwords for its theme parks and online games, the expansion into online video on a global basis brings the potential for more technology snafus.ZDNet reported over the weekend that Disney+ users’ accounts were being put up for sale on hacking forums within hours of the service’s launch at prices of $3 to $11 each. Some customers reported they had used old passwords, but others said they hadn’t, according to the website.While there may be few thousand compromised Disney accounts, that’s small compared with the hundreds of thousands of usernames and passwords on the black market hijacked from platforms like Hulu, Netflix and HBO, said Andrei Barysevich, chief executive officer and co-founder of the security firm Gemini Advisory.‘Very Effective’Reusing names and password combinations from previous attacks at other sites can be a “very effective method” for hackers, he said.“This is one of the biggest problems, not just streaming services, but pretty much every e-commerce business has been battling for the last couple of years, because there’s an abundance of compromised emails and passwords on the dark web,” Barysevich said.At Code Media, a conference for media executives, operators of rival services praised the Disney+ launch. David Nevins, chief creative officer at CBS Corp., called the sign-ups “impressive,” while AT&T Inc. President John Stankey said that while Disney+ “was off to a good start,” keeping customers happy and subscribed will be an ongoing issue.“How many of the 10 million customers are there six months from now?” Stankey asked. “It’s managing churn.”(Updates with executive comments starting in sixth paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Christopher Palmeri in Los Angeles at email@example.com;Kiley Roache in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Nick Turner at email@example.com, Rob GolumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Shares of AT&T fell more than 4% on Tuesday after MoffettNathanson downgraded the stock to sell on the belief that the telecom giant has bigger problems than a competitive wireless landscape.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There’s been a lot of drama lately in the wireless world concerning 5G and something called C-band. To most people, all the news headlines have probably looked like a foreign language. But allow me to translate for you, because it’s a fascinating situation that has sparked a transnational fight over some $50 billion, while presenting advocates of President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy with a catch-22. The outcome may have far-reaching implications for the U.S. in the global race to 5G, and it certainly does for a pair of beaten-down European stocks. At the root of the drama is spectrum, the invisible airwaves sought after by U.S. wireless carriers — Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint — and others to construct ultra-fast 5G data networks, the kind that will enable a smartphone to download a movie in mere seconds and support driverless car technology. The Federal Communications Commission has been working to free up spectrum being used by other institutions so that it can be auctioned off to the 5G builders and repurposed for their networks, a high priority for the Trump administration.But there have been some hiccups along the way. Take one case, in which scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) raised concerns that a particular slice of spectrum auctioned by the FCC could interfere with weather sensors and limit their ability to forecast hurricanes. That’s quite a quandary.The recent spectrum controversy, a separate matter from the hurricane one, has involved a swath referred to as the C-band. In the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz frequency range, these midband airwaves are highly desirable for 5G because they can both carry large amounts of data and travel long distances (some spectrum can only do one or the other). Here’s where it gets complicated: Most of the C-band is controlled by two Luxembourg-based companies, Intelsat SA and SES SA, which use it to beam TV shows to U.S. households from their satellite fleets. Telesat of Ottawa also owns some of the C-band rights. These three foreign companies make up what’s called the C-Band Alliance (CBA).The good news it that the CBA members are willing sellers, and the auction could raise $50 billion or more, according to an estimate by New Street Research. It would be one of the biggest spectrum auctions ever. But who gets the money: the CBA, or the U.S. Treasury? These are U.S. assets, after all. The CBA had been pushing for a private auction run by, of course, the CBA, arguing that it would make the process much faster. For those who see America’s buildout of 5G as an important geopolitical race against China, time is of the essence. FCC Chair Ajit Pai — who is already a controversial figure for repealing net neutrality and for backing the potentially harmful merger of T-Mobile and Sprint — originally seemed to be leaning toward the CBA plan. His Republican colleague, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, was in strong support of it: “In the grand scheme of things, if it is a contest between speed and the government trying to extract a significant piece of the transaction through a lengthy process, I’ll take the speedy resolution,” O’Rielly said at a conference in September. But in the CBA auction scenario, only a portion of the proceeds would go to the U.S., while the rest would be pocketed by the CBA. That sounded like nails on a chalkboard to at least one member of Congress: “They’re thinking about giving our spectrum to three foreign companies and letting them keep the $60 billion,” Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said during an impassioned speech on the Senate floor last month. “Talk about swampy,” he said, adding that the funds should go to the American taxpayer. But to put America first, is it better to hold a quicker auction or a more lucrative one? Kennedy has led the charge against the CBA’s plan (seemingly a charge of one because, hey, it’s hard getting folks excited about radio waves), pushing instead for a public auction run by the FCC. Though he may have a point, it was somewhat diluted by his supplemental remark that proceeds from the auction “would solve all of the president’s [border] wall problems.” Perhaps a coincidence, after Kennedy stumped at a Trump rally in his home state last week in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Eddie Rispone, the FCC changed its tune. On Monday, Pai Tweeted that he supports a public auction, citing that it would “afford all parties a fair opportunity to compete for this 5G spectrum,” limiting the litigation risk that a private auction may have presented. This is bad news mostly for the CBA crew. The U.S. wireless carriers would obviously like to get their hands on this spectrum sooner rather than later and have a bigger say over the process (Verizon especially, given that it’s focused so far on finicky millimeter wave spectrum). But for the heavily indebted Intelsat, it’s a far bigger inconvenience. The company’s stock has plummeted more than 50% this week, while SES dropped 24%.There’s more to come on this matter, but so far the supposed race to 5G looks more like an exhausting obstacle course. 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.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell from record levels while the S&P was flat on Tuesday as dour forecasts from retailers Home Depot and Kohl's fueled worries about consumer spending while uncertainty over the U.S.-China trade dispute simmered in the background. The tech-heavy Nasdaq was the best-performing of the three indexes, with support from Facebook Inc and Broadcom Inc helping to counter a drag from Qualcomm after the chip maker held an investor meeting.
The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones indexes slipped from record levels on Tuesday as dour forecasts from Home Depot and Kohl's eroded confidence on the strength of U.S. consumer spending ahead of the all-important holiday shopping season. The tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 0.24%, supported by gains in shares of Microsoft Corp, Facebook Inc and Broadcom Inc.
Other retail stocks also fell on the news, driving the S&P 500 retail index down 1.1%. Seven of the 11 major S&P 500 sectors were lower, with the consumer discretionary index's 0.82% drop weighing the most.
From understanding your risk tolerance to maintaining emotional control, achieving your retirement goals takes a much different investing approach than regular stock trading.
The acquisition of Game Show Network will augment Sony's (SNE) already robust catalogue of game shows and first-run series, thereby strengthening its leading position in the market.
AT&T Inc. announced today offers to purchase for cash any and all of the fifty-three series of outstanding notes listed in the table below , on the terms and conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase dated November 18, 2019 and the accompanying Letter of Transmittal .
Sony Pictures Entertainment (“SPE”) and AT&T Inc.* (NYSE:T) today announced that SPE has acquired AT&T’s minority stake in Game Show Network, LLC (“Game Show Network”). SPE now owns 100% of the multimedia entertainment company offering original and classic game programming to millions of subscribers through the U.S.-based cable network. It also offers online and mobile games to millions of users through GSN Games.