Despite record number of smartphone activations, Verizon loses $1.93 billion in Q4
0. phoneArena 22 Jan 2013, 07:34 posted on
Verizon reported adding 2.1 million new post-paid subscribers in the fourth quarter and activated a record number of smartphones in the quarter, but despite all this, the nation's largest carrier reported a loss of $1.93 billion for the three month period due to charges related to Hurricane Sandy; minus the charges, Verizon made 45 cents a share in profit, below expectations of 52 cents a share...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. anonimust (Posts: 19; Member since: 12 Jan 2012)
Inaccurate reporting. The results released were for Verizon Communications, the parent company which includes both Verizon Telecom and Verizon Wireless. The majority of the loss was sustained by Verizon Telecom due to damage and destruction of the costlier landline / FiOS network.
2. Alan01 (Posts: 108; Member since: 21 Mar 2012)
Actually, the costs related to Hurricane Sandy also dealt with the wireless end of the business.The company waived a number of late charges and the costs of using mobile trucks to keep the network running weighed on the quaterly results.
The best way to look at Verizon's numbers is to remove one time charges which resuklts in profits of 45 cents a share. That includes both wireless and the FIOS/landline business.
Considering that we never broke down the numbers between the two divisions, our coverage is completely accurate.
8. PAPINYC (Posts: 1834; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Actually, the best way to analyze Verizon's loss (since that's what the article attempts) is to state the obvious, if Verizon had not been so benevolent during (and, after) SuperStorm Sandy, it's quarterly loss would have been much less. Realizing, of course, that they are still repairing damage to their underground lines near Water Street, TriBeCa and other areas in NYC where their underground lines were damaged, as is evidenced by the presence of Verizon repair crews.
Verizon also GREATLY helped non-subscribers (who were with other carriers) to borrow phones (since their service was dead, cough-cough, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint); allowed people to charge their phones (AT&T said "No, you can not use our outlets even if you're a subscriber); allowed people use of their in-store demo devices; sent out Mobile trucks to affected areas (no other carrier did that); loaned out phones to FEMA - all cell phones in use at FEMA DRC's were Verizon flip phones!! How's that for accuracy?!
3. Bernoulli (Posts: 1178; Member since: 01 Sep 2012)
Oh well, serves them right, most expensive carrier in the USA
4. kaintae (Posts: 37; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
Youre absolutely right. They should have left the network down and charged customers for the extra usage during hurricane sandy.
5. Bernoulli (Posts: 1178; Member since: 01 Sep 2012)
Or they could charge less to customers and bring back unlimited data
6. threed61 (Posts: 107; Member since: 27 May 2011)
Or you could just sigh up with a carrier that charges less. No one is forced to use Verizon Wireless for their cellular service.
7. PAPINYC (Posts: 1834; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Agreed: partial expenditures to go along with "their" partial service.
9. lkjhg755 (Posts: 69; Member since: 21 Nov 2012)
Maybe I would want Verizon because it the only network I get lte in my area but I don't want to pay $100 a month for what T-Mobile give for $60?
11. threed61 (Posts: 107; Member since: 27 May 2011)
I'd kinda like to have a Mercedes for the price of my Ford, but it doesn't work that way. In all serious though, I ditched t-mo to pay more for Verizons better coverage and reliability, it was worth the extra to me. I know rural dwellers don't have the options I do, my sympathies if your stuck with only one choice.
14. corporateJP (Posts: 907; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
That is not entirely true considering some of the "Big Boys" have been eating up the "Little Guys", leaving many consumers with two, or even one, option.
Where I'm at, it's AT&T or Verizon, and in some cases one works where the other doesn't or vice versa.
So, you're wrong.
10. kaintae (Posts: 37; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
just so we're on the same page...when you say that it serves them right, do you mean to imply that this is some sort of cosmic karma because they got rid of unlimited data and because their service fees are higher?
looking at their churn numbers, it doesn't seem like your original point or supposed solution makes any sense at all. i agree with #6. if you don't have the money, why not just go with a cheaper carrier instead of coming on the boards and saying stuff that makes little sense.
besides that, remind me to never work for a business you own. i'm a consumer like everyone else. but i also understand profitability. clearly, you don't
13. corporateJP (Posts: 907; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
Everything you said is correct.
BUT...there is a fine line between profitability and rape, and more than one carrier is walking it now.
15. kaintae (Posts: 37; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
neither verizon nor at&t has ever grabbed anyone off the street and forced them to use their service. yes, their prices are higher. but comparing it to rape isn't fair, considering we all know that there are a bunch of providers out there, who offer different plans in different price ranges.
16. threed61 (Posts: 107; Member since: 27 May 2011)
Ok JP, welcome to the corporate states of America. If hating Verizon makes you feel better, by all means indulge! Or pour that anger into activism. There are numerous groups that are working to cut cell rates, give them your time and/or money. I'm still pretty sure Verizon didn't force you to use their service, and a real rape victim would be happy to trade problems with you. Activism does work by the way, it helped stop AT&T from buying out T-Mobile, and AT&T has one of the best lobbying machines in America.
17. suneeboy (Posts: 137; Member since: 02 Oct 2012)
Don't understand how so many people have Verizon. It is super expensive. Matter of fact, I don't know how so many people can still be willing to sign a 2-year contract.