power collide in silicon valley and beyond, this is bloomberg technology with emily chang. emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg technology. coming up in the next hour -- could have been worse. -- could've been worse. that's what analysts are saying about netflix results. shares jumping despite losing almost a million subscribers. could ads solve the company's problems? we will discuss. twitter wins for now -- a judge grants the company to fast-track its lawsuit against yield -- against elon musk. the trial now set to start in october. what it tells us about which side has a better shot stop as a major crypto lender, is regulation the answer? the head of u.s. policy talking about the weight out of the ashes of the crypto crash.

first i want to get a look at the market. tech pushing u.s. stocks higher as earnings season it does well. ed ludlow is here with the very latest. ed: interesting session. 494 stocks in the green, that's the breath and rally we haven't seen since march of 2020. if you look at the outperformance, the nasdaq up 3%, its best performance in more than three weeks. that is as risk on appetite took over. beyond that point, its highest level in a month. the markets speculating now might be the time to come in and buy. earnings with a really interesting dynamic. if you show the results from ibm, it was one of the worst performers, down 5%, after its

could take -- after cutting its four-year outlook for free cash flow. some of the software companies, the strong dollar really weighing on ibm sales, its top line. twitter closing up 2.8%, it had been up as much as 54% after it was granted an expedited trial in a delaware court. and netflix -- you and i love talking about netflix because you and i love so me the shows. they are up 7% after hours because they lost fewer subscribers than they thought they would, 970,000 versus the 2 million they forecast, which is the eye-popping headline. there is a big name title that helps them there. you've been bugging me about it for weeks. what have you been watching?

emily: i don't know if it's my absolute favorite. but stranger things -- it has been gory or than seasons past. ed: that gore rated 1.3 billion viewing hours. the best four weeks for a season netflix has ever had. clearly that might be helping the stock. emily: not bad. a few of those hours for me and my couch. let's ring indent morgan. explain this to me -- why are shares up if they still lost almost a million subscribers? dan: it's a confusing report. if you think about it, it's a sigh of relief by a lot of people coming to the numbers. obviously the projections going into the third quarter are below expectations in the terms of a number of new subscribers. they are saying they are going to add a million. they did lose less than

expected, there were estimates, some people were saying as many as 2 million and they came in losing 970,000. the other thing that is confusing is if you look at the guidance going into revenue and earnings for the third quarter, they are below consensus and yet the stock was up. the only thing i can think of is they are addressing a lot of their issues. they talked in their shareholder letter about how they are going to address the issues with 100 million people using the service for free. they talked about free cash flow and various other things. they are addressing their issues, it wasn't the worst we thought and that's how we have to leave it because the stock is up. emily: let's talk about this crackdown on password sharing. netflix has been giving away netflix for free for a while to a lot of people who just have not paid up. if they crackdown on passwords, how big an impact do you think that will have in getting some of those people to pay up?

dan: in the shareholder letter, they mention they are going to test two approaches and charge $2.99 a month and try to work something to get these people to start paying. i'm curious to learn little bit about that. that seems really low to me. i pay close to two me dollars a month for my netflix subscription in the united states. it's going to be interesting to see how they roll that out and try to monetize these people and bring them in house. we need to learn a little more about how they are going to do it. but that's a huge number, 100 million. emily: would advertising be the answer to netflix's problems? dan: i'm curious to see how that's going to lay out. they signed an agreement with microsoft to help them on that. i'm wondering if i can ask you -- if they got to the point where they are offering a streaming service and there's

not that many ads, may be every 15 minutes, would you be willing to say i'm not going to pay $15 or $20 a month and just goat to the free ad-free service? the other thing is they have 220 million people using their system right now. how many people do they add to the ad streaming service and do they start competing against the likes of facebook or google in terms of garnering all this revenue through advertising? i don't know how that's going to come together for them. they are introducing some new services and 2023. it will be interesting to see what happens. emily: time is precious and so is money. also the ad experience -- what kind of ads are these? are they pleasing? are they tailored to me? this point has been made -- the companies that are brought a best competitors are disney plus, hulu, hbo plus -- disney

plus is not necessarily a substitute for netflix. dan: it's interesting. they are the largest competitor next to netflix. they are targeting about 240 million subscribers by 2024, which seems like a really big number for them. but disney plus is a little more different in terms of their content than what we find on netflix. you are talking about various series they have and how people get hooked on them. a different component, disney heads -- disney has a huge library of content with all the years of disney production. there's no doubt in terms of number of subscribers, disney is closest in terms of their having 100 million. the rest of the other players have much less subscribers. emily: is the return on content

spending paying off or dropping off? if stranger things is costing $30 million in episode, is that worth it? dan: it's interesting, you look at their content expense projection for this year, it's about $17.9 million, which is in line with what they projected last year. -- $17.9 billion. it looks like they are getting a little more cautious in the attitude we are going to spend tons of money, create tons of content, we will get subscribers and pay for it. they are starting to pull back a little bit in regard to their content budgets and starting to be more careful in margins and so forth. you bring up a good point -- you keep spending and spending and spending, if you are not getting me subscriber growth, doesn't make sense to keep spending more and more money on content? do you need to bring it in and refocus?

it appears they are starting to do that as opposed to the growth at all cost model which they were doing in the past. emily: we will continue to dive into these netflix results. always good to have you here. dan morgan. coming up, twitter gets the green light to take elon musk to court. and we will talk about what's next with a columbia law professor and our very own kurt wagner. this is bloomberg. ♪

what if you were a global bank who wanted to supercharge your audit system? so you tap ibm to un-silo your data. and start crunching a year's worth of transactions against thousands of compliance controls with the help of ai. now you're making smarter decisions faster. operating costs are lower. and everyone from your auditors to your bankers feels like a million bucks. let's create smarter ways of putting your data to work. ibm. let's create emily: round one goes to

twitter. the company was granted its request to fast-track its lawsuit against elon musk as he attempts to walk away from the deal. a delaware judge set a five day trial to start in october. for more, we are joined by a columbia law school professor and codirector of the nielsen center along with kurt wagner, who covers twitter for us. what happened in court today? the judge actually has covid. >> i was listening on a public dial in which she felt interesting. both sides presented their case. they submitted written elements to this. the judge took a little time to review and witness day -- and put a out a pretty quick verdict. based on the arguments that had been made, feels it would make sense to speed this up, not quite as fast. they were hoping to do a trial in september but thought the longer this thing drags out, the

more chance there is for damage to twitters business and brand. the muska team wanted to wait until february. emily: you know the judge here and know her record pretty well. i understand she's a seller-friendly judge or has made seller-friendly decisions in the past. what can you tell us about her? >> she's normally right down the middle in terms of her predilections. she works harder than just about any judge i've ever met and is extremely smart. the thing to remer is the delaware court has seen a fair number of these cases were buyers try to walk away, whether because of covid or the financial crisis. chancellor mccormick actually had one of these cases that came up during covid about a year ago and she did, basically told the

buyer you are going to be required to go forward with this transaction. i don't even care that your financing has fallen through because you made that happen. you engineered or sabotaged your own deal. during the argument today, there was a lot of argument from twitters lawyers about whether elon musk had similarly been trying to sabotage the deal. we hadn't gotten to any of those matters yet. the key question is whether this litigation was going to get fast tracked or put on the slow track. we are definitely on the fast track. while twitters lawyers didn't get exactly what they were looking for, they missed it by only a couple of weeks. she pushed what they hoped to be a september trial into october. when would chalk this up to a victory at least as of today for twitter. emily: the question is how big a victory? you talk about president but would that involve taking on elon musk? eric: unless there are cake

decorating companies worth $44 billion, no. this w a small deal, not even a publicly traded company. so there an interesting question about whether when the stakes get ratcheted up like this, chancellor mccormick is going to be unsympathetic board a buyer that wants to walk away. however this particular deal, and everyone knew this because it was in the public domain, elon musk went after twitter. they were a reluctant seller. he said i would make this a really seller-friendly deal. only after the deal got signed off did he seem to have problems with bots. a lot of people, including twitters lawyer said this is a pretext. this is the beginning, it was intended to engineer an exit ramp for elon musk. one of the key claims he made

was this bot problem is bigger than i thought it was going to be. but that was never in the document itself. it was never in the agreement. it was something he injected into the picture and one of the key questions there were looking at today is is that judge willing to take a long-term litigation approach which would be a signal she might be more willing to listen to some of this bot count war. instead, she is fast tracking it. they are still going to be arguing about bots. but they are not going to be the loan out thing elon musk and his lawyers want. emily: the professor makes a good point. you almost forget twitter didn't want to do this in the first place and now here we are. what are you hearing from your twitter sources about what they are going to be doing over the next few weeks? kurt: obviously there's a lot of preparation that will go into this. but as eric mentioned, this is a good win for twitter because it shows their argument is being

well-received, which i think is the big thing. i think they've already sort of one in the court of public opinion. that's certainly on my twitter feed, there's a lot of support for twitter. i've seen employees seem to be happy with how the company is handled this. it's about trying to remove a lot of the uncertainty because the company has been this weird state for months where they say it's business as usual, but you can't imagine you are going to be putting a six or 12 month product roadmap out the door when you have elon musk covering there. they want to do this as quick as possible so they can get back to doing things like shifting products and improving the business. emily: how do you think elon musk, larger-than-life personality, he has 100 million twitter followers himself. if we are talking about the court of public opinion, elon musk has a lot of fans.

how will that influence this trial? eric: there is a sense in which it already had. one of the arguments his lawyers made today's you can't leave this deal in limbo when it may just be thrown into utter chaos if we are going into another years worth of litigation. that may be in part due to their argument talking about the damage elon musk could potentially do here. it's deftly true there has long been this question about whether mr. musk has some sort of exceptionalism that would not make him bound to the same rules that apply to everyone else. this is an early shot across the bow to suggest this judge is willing to treat this case just like she would any other case. when you've got a deal that has gotten signed up on seller-friendly turns with verily -- friendly terms, with a drummed up reason to walk away,

the muska team probably has an uphill battle to -- the musk team has an uphill battle to climb here. the delaware court is widely reputed to be the place where grown-ups go to transact with one another. if you put something down on paper and you promise it, they are going to hold you to it. on some level, yes, elon musk has a larger-than-life presence but that has a countervailing effect delaware court might have an opportunity to say even for this person, we are going to hold him to his agreement. emily: i am sure there will be many more twists and turns between now and october. thank you, as well as kurt wagner who has a data in the lower court in october. coming up, and internal memo some by facebook executives is a basis for a new antitrust proposals that would force meta-

to treat all of its platforms equally. we will have more on that after the break. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a new libor rate -- newly released memo is raising alarms about competitive practices in silicon valley in helping shape regulation. an internal document prepared for mark zuckerberg by facebook executives in 2018 now released by the house reveals the companies were worried about threats from its own products like instagram and whatsapp than threats from without. it has helped them stitch together the american innovation and choice online act that would curb some of the powers. here is to discuss it is leah nylund. tell us what was in this memo

and why it matters. >> this memo was written in 2018 by a senior data scientist, thomas cunningham. he analyzed the ways in which facebook owned product compete with each other. so the ways instagram and facebook competed against each other, the ways facebook messenger and what -- and whatsapp compete against each other and how those were growing or shrinking. that was interesting because this entire memo is about how facebook's own products are cannibalizing each other and seen as the biggest competitor against facebook's main product we instead of any rivals. there aren't that many external companies mentioned in this article. youtube gets a very small shot -- small shot out. tiktok is not even mentioned. so that's what's interesting is it backs up the idea that facebook had brought -- had

bought these properties to extend its monopoly in social networking. emily: what is the impact this memo could have on pending regulation and the impact on laws that facebook is going to ultimately have to abide by? leah: congress is considering this legislation that would prevent some of the big tech platforms like facebook from self referencing, giving advantages to its own products over those of rivals. one thing facebook does is make it easy to crosspost between facebook and instagram. this would force them to make it easier for other platforms to also crosspost to their social networks. this legislation has advanced in house and senate but there's been a lot of pressure in the senate in particular but they

are focused on the november elections. this seems like the large and last window for congress to act truly act on the legislation if something is going to happen this year. emily: any response from facebook about this? facebook is the one that handed over the memo in the first place. leah: they said this is old news. this is from 2018. they like to bring up that tiktok is an emerging rival and they think there's still a lot of competition in the social networking space. emily: something we will continue to follow. thank you for that context. coming up, netflix is testing new release strategies, new viewer experiences. will that be the secret to stopping subscribers from fleeing? that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com.

emily: welcome back to bloomberg technology. i want to get back to our top story and that is netflix shares

still jumping after hours after the streaming giant reported lower than expected loss of subscribers in the second quarter. at the forecast still slower than expected recovery in the current quarter. ed ludlow is here with three charts that matter. ed: the first chart is the reaction -- up almost 8%. there are two ways of looking at it -- they lost fewer subscribers than they thought. 970,000 is still quite a bit to lose. the other other way of looking at it is they expect to grow, but grow by less than previously forecast. a lot of questions analyst have is the changing face of netflix as well. take a look at this chart -- what netflix is able to do is get more revenue out of each user. one of the questions coming from this analyst ahead of the webcast call for earnings was

the advertising model. you see the average revenue per user is 50% since 2016. so the growth picture on the subscriber front, they've been able to squeeze out more money from them. the other part of the story is where netflix is doing well. this chart behind me is really fascinating. a lower than expected loss of subscribers was helped by growth in the asia-pacific region. netflix has done so much ground local language content in countries like korea and the indian market and you look at where that losses coming from where netflix raised prices on its service in the first half of this year. the after hours and share reaction, it's hard to get one set around them. emily: we are looking at a return to growth after losing almost a million subscribers. do you like what you see?

i know you are a big netflix holder, but here you are having lost another million subscribers. >> yes and no. obviously losing subscribers is not a great headline but you have to look at it in the context of rising prices in the united states and the fact they don't have a way to monetize people who don't want to have to pay which turns out about already percent of people who watch netflix don't pay. that's why people are bullish on the strategy netflix is going to be employing to get these people to pay, a two-pronged strategy that will be very effective. one is the advertising tear which is a wonderful opportunity to address a global market if you are in advertiser and a very engaged audience. as an advertiser myself, i would put ads on netflix. forgetting add-ons for people who use or mom's account -- this is a wake-up call to millennials

across america that they will have to watch ads if they don't want to pay for netflix. the days of free streaming are over for them. emily: what is your take on their content spending strategy? yes, they spend a lot but it seems like netflix makes a lot of stuff. would you advocate them spending less on fewer but still big hits rather than on everything? there seems to be a little spray and pray element. ross: when you are serving the world, you have a huge audience to make happy. a lot of content they make is for niche audiences one way or another they are trying to serve throughout the world. but you have to look at how much goes out and how much comes in and what they get for what they are spending. one of the things in the report i found interesting was the fact

netflix is getting to a point where they are advertising the same amount as they are spending on content. they used to spend a lot more than they are advertising. so there's a number of profitability on the content they have. if any group of people i trust, it's the group of people at netflix. they make amazing content. emily: valuations have dropped and i wonder what you think about m&a. could netflix acquire some new capabilities? what about roku or a theater chain? ross: i was pushing toward the theater chain idea because i would love to see the rhino -- the ryan reynolds movie in that theater which could generate $100 million netflix is not going to get. it makes me sad they are not moving that direction but i'm in the gaming business and they are moving toward gaming and partnered with microsoft, which

is part of the top holdings in my fund and so i'm happy microsoft at netflix are moving into the gaming area together. what a great partnership. if you look at the way disney has monetize ip, that's what netflix is thinking about -- how do we monetize our ip better. maybe it's live events -- we saw that with the netflix comedy specials which were live events netflix sold tickets to and then on the platform. that's the thinking -- we are a big company with lots of subscribers and still want to grow but there's a huge amount of revenue that they are focused on and that approach is attractive as a shareholder. emily: i want to ask about tesla and twitter. i know you are a big tesla holder. as i understand it, you held

twitter until elon musk decided he wanted to pull out of the deal. now we are seeing this judge fast-track the trial and there are certainly signs this delaware court could force elon musk to do the deal. what's your take? ross: i'm not a lawyer, so i want to say i have a pretty good understanding of the law but i'm not a professional lawyer. my take on this, and i've spoken to many legal people about this and my own experience watching mergers over my life is that elon made a big mistake. this is a mess. it was a material effect on twitter and you can't deny it. pulling out of this deal has severely damaged twitter and their future. i think elon is at risk to potentially lose billions of dollars in damages but i don't see a court forcing a person to run a company they don't want to run. that's not really the solution.

twitter has been damaged and the question is whether they find that damage to be elon's fault or not because of the information he received from twitter, which, no question was questionable. but in my mind, they had a merger agreement and he breached it and it's going to be a costly encounter for elon. emily: does it damage tesla? ross: no. it's a positive for tesla. he's not going to be the ceo of twitter. he doesn't want anything to do with that. he's going to lose billions of dollars. he's a very wealthy man, so he will survive. from a tesla perspective, tesla is an massive growth mode right now. it couldn't be a better environment to sell electric vehicles and they've got to brand-new factories and his focus needs to be on tesla right now because the next 12 to 18 months are the most consequential months for tesla's

futures i've seen in eight years i've been an investor in tesla. i'm happy -- it's still a waste of time and distracting, but i'm happy he's not going to end up being ceo of twitter and hopefully he will learn his lesson and focus on what he has done great, which is tesla and i think that's what he's learned. emily: stranger things have happened and i'm going to keep using that fun. ross gerber, always great to have you. coming up, calls for crypto regulation are getting louder but gary gensler says there are laws in place and crypto platforms are not coming forward. we are on that, next. >> there's a lot of noncompliance to a few raise money from the public and that public is anticipating based on your efforts some profit, that comes into the securities laws.

we at the sec are going to do what we can come about right now, there's far too many of these platforms that haven't come into comply with the laws and register. ♪ as a main street bank, pnc has helped over 7 million kids develop their passion for learning. and now we're providing 88 billion dollars to support underserved communities... ...helping us all move forward financially. pnc bank: see how we can make a difference for you.

>> when you look back, there was very little self-regulation. there was inane risk management were companies took massive leverage, took asset liability mismatch, which means they had short-term deposits at month amount long. those are the two ways people always go bankrupt. emily: galaxy digital, saying

companies might need to better self regulate. he was at the bloomberg crypto summit along with coinbase's head of u.s. policy who joins us now to unpack it all. a couple of competing narratives here. one that there is regulation according to the chair of the sec, former chair of the sec, but companies aren't listening, are not coming forward. what do you think? >> at coinbase, we bite ourselves on being compliant, so we are regulated by more than 42 state licenses, we have a truck carter, so we view ourselves as very well regulated. we are regulated at the federal level, by the sec, a broker-dealer license, we are -- we think there is a regulatory framework that is pretty

effective. but what we need to do is make sure we modernize those rules and bring them into a space that can really and truly understand the technological capabilities of blockchain and digital assets and help consumers achieve and understand those benefits. emily: if those rules were modernized, do you think the spectacular crash we've just seen could have been avoided? the crash of a major crypto hash fund and crypto lender could have been avoided? kara: it's difficult to pick what may have happened but if we had clear rules of the road for all different companies invade -- engaged in the crypto ecosystem, we have more clarity when it comes to disclosure or requirements on how you may address different business risks. but we saw through the recent volatility is the issue a credit problem, not a crypto problem. what we are hoping for our consistent rules that will help consumers understand what they're getting into and you have businesses and innovators

in new projects that can come to the table. instead of hiring a team of lawyers to comply with what could be considered a vague rule, they could get the next big thing for consumers. emily: there's a crypto bill being pushed. i spoke with the lawmakers about the bill and why it could be the answer. take a listen to this. >> the bill seen in one piece as a total bill is more likely to be deferred until next year. it's a big topic. it's comprehensive and it's still new to many u.s. senators. emily: do you like this legislation and do you think it will pass? kara: one, i'm from the great state of wyoming, so all of the work that senator lummis is doing is near and dear to my heart.

i appreciate her work for the cowboy state. this bill is by far and away the most comprehensive, detailed, the intellectual rigor that was put into it is really impressive and will create a foundation for future legislation and i think she's right. legislation can take a very long time to get across the finish line. it includes tax reform, sections on stablecoin, it's very complex and putting this puzzle together will take time, a lot of different committees, it will take the administration. once we get these pieces together, we are set up for success in the coming year. emily: coinbase is striving to be a global company. our other government doing this that are than the u.s. or are they ahead of the u.s. on regulation? kara: some of the companies are

ahead of where the u.s. is. by nature of the fact they may be set up with a single regulator, for example in the u.k. in the eu, they are putting together a comprehensive approach to digital assets. we are seeing additional work in india, singapore, japan and australia. there are a lot of contribute or's coming to the table and working with stakeholders and consumers to understand what the assets are. that's where we need to get in terms of the united states, creating a rulemaking process and a regulatory process that's transparent, engaging stakeholders, thinking about retail institutions and how we can move forward in a way that includes all the different people. that's what we are missing in united states right now. emily: we have u.s. midterms coming up. could that be a pivotal moment? kara: 100%. we have more crypto advocates

and allies, members of the house and senate understanding what's going on in the crypto space. it's happening at the state and local level as well. we are regulated at the state level and have some weather -- have some wonderful regulators. at the end of the day, we have to make sure those being elected to office understand this is the future. it's the future of finance, the future of the economy and the more we can educate policymakers , we will all be better off. emily: thank you for giving us your view on the landscape. coming up, controlling computers with your brain. no hands needed. this is not science fiction, it is reality. we will have more on the company making it possible. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in this week's economics, controlling a computer with your brain. it might sound like something out of a sci-fi movie but the technology already exists. for the first time, a brain-computer interface device has been implanted into the brain of a u.s. patient. the company that makes it, their founder joins us now with more. who is this patient and why did they decide to do this? >> the are not talking too much about the patient out of respect for privacy but i can say it's a patient that has a severe paralysis due to als and he's not able to use his hands or speak and depends on assisted technology to communicate with his family and friends and is looking for a way to improve

that capability. emily: how will this implant help him? tom: the concept is essentially the idea that we have become dependent on digital devices to engage with the world. there is a part of the brain that controls our fingers. we use our fingers to point and click. if we can go straight to the source in the brain that controls the intention to do point-and-click, put a sensor in there, you can decode the information out of the brain and control it without the need for your hands to do it. emily: what are you hoping to learn from this patients experience? tom: this has been a long journey. we became the first company to get approval from the fda to discuss a permanently implanted vc i. we are primarily focus on safety. but we are focused on how we can measure efficacy. the fda has publicly stated it's not obvious how we would want to

fight the effectiveness and we are starting to test out some of those parameters with a view toward comparing that for fda approval and then going to commercial launch. emily: as i understand it, your technology is ahead of what elon musk has accomplished so far at nur a link. how much further ahead and how is what you are trying to do different from what he's trying to do? tom: i would say we are at the beginning of a renaissance of brain science and this is going to be a huge problem solved for many patients. there are many ways to try to solve the problem. the way we are doing it is going to the brain through blood vessels. we are a -- we are at a particular path and have had a track record of leaving devices with lead vessels and letting the body react to that. it's a big problem and there are

going to be many approaches needed but we are excited to be finally getting into the clinical stage in the u.s. after five years of discussion with fda and demonstration of safety and testing our technology. emily: do you imagine will be doing is -- doing this in the near term future? is this something you see anyone opting to do? tom: paralysis is a massive problem. we probably all know someone who has lost the ability to lose their -- to use their hands, stroke, als, many conditions make our body ineffective while our rain is still working. our focus is to show the technology is for the patient population initially. the way i think about where this technology is going is that it's going to be something like lay sick, an elective procedure that helps you engage with

technology, overcome physical disabilities and reestablish your digital world. emily: you think in the future, putting a device inside your brain will be as easy, simple and desirable as getting lay sick i surgery? tom: lay sick i surgery is a minor procedure. it's still a laser on your eyeball. there is still a risk and it takes a couple of hours. there are physicians putting instants and pacemakers using the same technology we would be putting in a brain-computer interface. there are thousands of them across the country with physicians that can perform the procedure. it's invisible to the outside world and helps you connect. the human body can fail for a number of reasons. emily: absolutely fascinating.

i understand you've done this a handful of times in australia, but your first u.s. patient now has a brain implant. we will keep following your progress. thank you for joining us. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. don't forget to check out our podcast. you can find it wherever you get your podcast. i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. switch to xfimom: mobile today. how was school? dad: wow!

♪ vo: music can help you express how you're feeling. when you can't find the language, find the lyrics.