Verizon’s chief executive left a door open and bolted another one shut on the same day. According to a report on Verizon CEO Dan Schulman’s comments about Starlink, he sees ways to work with satellite providers, including Elon Musk’s service. He also said Verizon will not hand any satellite provider an MVNO deal. The remarks came out of Verizon’s third-quarter earnings call, reported on October 26, 2026.
Starlink is a service of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., better known as SpaceX. That matters because the cooperation Schulman described is narrow, while the refusal is blunt. He called satellite a real fit for remote areas and said Verizon would compete if SpaceX moves further into the wireless market. For anyone tracking the hardware that carries mobile data, from towers to low-earth-orbit satellites, this was the clearest statement yet on where Verizon draws its line.
This analysis separates what Schulman actually said from what headlines read into it. It also explains why an MVNO refusal carries more weight than a friendly line about remote coverage, and how the stance fits with the pushback US carriers have already mounted against SpaceX’s spectrum ambitions, as we covered when AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile opposed the FCC’s 482 MHz Starlink mobile plan.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What Schulman Said About Starlink on the Oct. 26 Call
Verizon Communications Inc. CEO Dan Schulman told listeners that the company sees potential ways to work with satellite providers, Starlink among them. He framed satellite connectivity as a complement to traditional wireless service, especially where cellular coverage thins out. That is a modest claim. It treats satellite as a way to fill gaps rather than a way to win customers away from the core network.
Coverage of the call spread fast. A TradingView News item carried the headline “Verizon Waves Off Starlink, Bets On Cities And Old Phone Buildings,” which captures the other half of the message. Benzinga, The Motley Fool and Yahoo Finance also covered the story, and the framing varied between cooperation and refusal depending on which sentence an outlet led with.
Both readings are accurate. Schulman did say there are ways to work together. He also said, in plain terms, that Verizon sees no reason to extend an MVNO agreement to any satellite provider. The two statements are consistent once you separate a partnership on Verizon’s terms from wholesale access to Verizon’s network on someone else’s terms.
The On-Record Statements, Line by Line
Reporters quoted Schulman at length, which makes it possible to lay out his position without guessing. The table below sorts his remarks by topic. Where a line is verbatim, the table says so. Where it is a paraphrase, no quotation marks appear.
| Topic | What Schulman said | Form | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of satellite | There is a role for satellite in remote areas and it is a great service for those customers | Verbatim | Satellite fills coverage gaps |
| Cooperation | Verizon can work with satellite providers directly or through its joint venture | Verbatim | Partnership is possible on Verizon’s terms |
| Value proposition | Any such tie-up should be complementary and differentiated | Verbatim | No head-on substitution |
| MVNO access | No backdoors to existing MVNO agreements and no benefit in extending one to a satellite provider | Verbatim | Network wholesale is off the table |
| MVNO restated | No benefit to Verizon Communications in extending an MVNO deal | Verbatim | Position repeated, not softened |
| Competition | Verizon intends to compete if SpaceX enters the market | Paraphrase | Defensive posture |
| Timeline | Verizon expects to “punch back” in four to six years | Verbatim fragment | Long-range competitive plan |
The pattern is easy to see. Every sentence about cooperation is hedged with words like complementary and differentiated. Every sentence about network access is absolute. A CEO who wanted to keep a negotiation alive would not use the word backdoor.
Why an MVNO Refusal Matters More Than a Friendly Line
An MVNO, or mobile virtual network operator, sells wireless service over capacity it rents from a host carrier. The renter owns the brand and the customer relationship, while the host owns the towers, the spectrum and the backhaul. For a satellite company, an MVNO deal would be a shortcut. It would give the provider ground-level coverage in cities and suburbs without building a single terrestrial site.
That shortcut is exactly what Schulman closed off. In his words, there are no backdoors to any Verizon MVNO agreement, and he sees absolutely no benefit whatsoever to extending an MVNO deal to any satellite provider. Reporters also quoted him saying there is no benefit to Verizon Communications in extending such a deal. He said it twice in near-identical terms, which tells you the position is settled policy rather than an offhand answer.
The logic is simple. A satellite operator with good direct-to-device technology and a rented terrestrial layer would own the customer. Verizon would supply the capacity and collect wholesale revenue, while the satellite brand captured the retail relationship and the data about those subscribers. Schulman’s refusal protects Verizon’s retail franchise first and its network economics second.
Verified Quotes From the Conference Record
Beyond the earnings call, a transcript published by Investing.com of Schulman’s Goldman Sachs Communacopia + Technology Conference appearance records him taking the same line. Three excerpts from that transcript sharpen the picture.
We see absolutely no advantage in extending an MVNO to any LEO provider, nor are there any backdoors whatsoever to any of our existing MVNO relationships.
Dan Schulman, CEO, Verizon, per the Investing.com transcript
The wording differs slightly from the earnings-call version, but the substance matches. LEO stands for low earth orbit, the band where Starlink’s satellites operate. Schulman is naming the technology class, not just one company.
Well, we’ve seen no, zero discernible impact on our broadband growth from any LEO, low Earth orbit satellite provider, including Starlink.
Dan Schulman, CEO, Verizon, per the Investing.com transcript
This line goes after a common investor worry, that satellite internet would eat into home broadband. Schulman says the data shows no such effect so far. Notably, he named Starlink instead of speaking in generalities.
It’s going to be complementary.
Dan Schulman, CEO, Verizon, per the Investing.com transcript
The short sentence carries the thesis. Verizon treats satellite as an add-on layer. The same transcript also records him saying he does not see satellite as a viable competitor in the medium and even longer term, a point we return to below because it sits awkwardly beside his promise to punch back.
Complement, Not Replacement: Satellite’s Role in Remote Areas
On the earnings call, Schulman said he believes there is a role for satellite for sure in remote areas, and called it a great service for those customers. Coming from the head of a major US wireless carrier, that is a real concession. It acknowledges that terrestrial networks do not reach everywhere and that satellite does a job towers cannot do economically.
The concession also has limits. Remote areas are, by definition, places with few subscribers. Conceding them costs Verizon little revenue and buys goodwill with regulators who care about rural coverage. Meanwhile, the dense markets where most of the revenue sits stay firmly inside the terrestrial moat.
Dependence on one satellite vendor carries its own risks for users in those remote zones. Our earlier piece on Ukraine’s reliance on a single satellite vendor shows how a service that feels like a lifeline can also become a point of failure. A carrier that offers satellite as a complement, rather than as a replacement, keeps a terrestrial fallback in place.
The Joint Venture Language and What It Leaves Open
The most interesting sentence from the call is the one about structure. Schulman said there are ways that Verizon can work together with satellite providers, either directly or through its JV with satellite providers, to provide a complementary service and a differentiated value proposition. The reports do not spell out which entities sit inside that joint venture, and this article does not guess.
What the sentence does reveal is the template. Verizon would sell a bundled service in which satellite supplies the coverage layer and Verizon keeps the customer, the billing and the brand. That is the reverse of an MVNO, where the satellite brand would own the subscriber. The difference between the two structures explains how one executive can say yes and no to the same company in a single breath.
No report confirms a specific commercial partnership between Verizon and Starlink. No report confirms a finalized MVNO agreement either, and the second option is the one Schulman publicly rejected. Readers should treat any claim of an imminent Verizon and Starlink deal as unsupported by the current record.
The Punch-Back Warning: Verizon’s Plan if SpaceX Enters
Schulman told listeners Verizon intends to compete if SpaceX enters the wireless market. Coverage of the call quoted him on the timing: “We look forward to being able, in four to six years, to finally punch back, and we will punch back hard when that happens.” The phrase is combative, and it implies a view of how long SpaceX would need to build out terrestrial or hybrid capability.
The four-to-six-year window works as a signal to two audiences. For investors, it says Verizon sees no near-term threat and has time to prepare. For SpaceX, it says Verizon will not be surprised. Any move toward owning spectrum or ground infrastructure would meet a rival that has already planned its response.
The word finally deserves attention. It suggests Verizon feels it has absorbed pressure in the past and would welcome a chance to respond on equal footing. Executives rarely use that kind of language about competitors they consider harmless, which sits oddly beside the conference remark that satellite is not a viable competitor over the longer term.
Hardware Stakes: Towers, Spectrum and Satellites
This story belongs in the hardware conversation because the real contest is over physical assets. A carrier’s moat is made of macro sites, radio equipment, backhaul and licensed spectrum. A satellite operator’s moat is made of launch capacity, orbital hardware and the chips in consumer handsets that can talk to space. Schulman’s MVNO refusal is a refusal to let one side borrow the other’s hardware. More background sits in our hardware coverage hub.
Ground assets Verizon is guarding
Cell sites are the obvious asset. Our report on how AT&T fell as SpaceX eyed 80,000 cell sites showed how sensitive markets are to any hint that a satellite company wants a terrestrial footprint. Verizon’s position is a reminder that building or renting that footprint is exactly the step it will contest.
Spectrum as the other battleground
Spectrum is the second asset. Carriers have fought to keep mid-band and low-band licences out of satellite hands, a fight we tracked in the CTIA dispute over SpaceX and the 1695-1700 MHz band. Schulman’s comments land on top of that regulatory skirmish and add a commercial wall to the legal one.
Market Impact: How Investors and Rivals Read It
Investors parse these remarks for one question: does satellite threaten carrier subscriber growth? Schulman’s answer was no, at least for now, and his conference comment about zero discernible impact on broadband growth backs it. A Yahoo Finance piece asked the follow-up in its headline, quoting the line “It’s not something that gets done overnight,” as it examined why SpaceX’s telecom ambitions will be hard-won, according to CEOs and analysts.
A framing from Constellation Research casts the contest differently. Its piece, Verizon vs. Starlink: It’s about AI’s edge, last mile, argues by its title that the fight is about who controls the final connection to devices and edge computing. That reading fits Schulman’s insistence on owning the customer relationship, because whoever owns the last mile owns the data that flows through it.
Rival carriers watch the same signals. A refusal by the largest network to wholesale to satellite providers raises the price any satellite company must pay to get terrestrial reach. It also pressures other carriers to hold the same line, because one carrier that said yes would hand the satellite provider the very shortcut Verizon denied.
Competitive Comparison: Four Ways to Treat a Satellite Provider
Carriers have a short menu of options when a satellite company knocks. The table compares them against what Schulman has said Verizon will and will not do. Verizon’s column reflects only the stated positions. It does not predict future decisions.
| Option | Who owns the customer | Who supplies ground capacity | Verizon’s stated stance |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVNO deal for the satellite provider | Satellite brand | Carrier, as wholesale host | Rejected outright |
| Direct commercial tie-up | Negotiated | Carrier | Possible, per Schulman |
| Joint-venture service | Carrier-led | Carrier plus satellite | Possible, per Schulman |
| Satellite as remote-area add-on | Carrier | Satellite fills gaps | Welcomed for remote areas |
| Head-on competition | Contested | Each builds its own | Planned if SpaceX enters |
The pattern in the table is consistent. Verizon accepts any structure where it keeps the retail relationship. It rejects any structure where it merely rents out capacity. That is a defensible business logic, though it limits how fast satellite providers can scale in dense markets.
Other markets show the same tension. Our comparison of Jio versus Starlink in India looks at how a dominant local carrier and a satellite entrant price against each other, and how quickly a home-market incumbent can shape the terms.
Historical Context: Wholesale Access and Its Limits
Wholesale network access has a long history in wireless. Host carriers have rented capacity to brands that wanted a phone business without building towers, and some of those arrangements grew into serious competitors. Carriers learned that a successful tenant can become a rival, and that lesson shapes how executives talk about new entrants today.
Satellite adds a twist. Earlier tenants needed the host’s towers because they had no alternative. A satellite company already has a network of its own, so renting a terrestrial layer would be a convenience, not a necessity. That gives the host more leverage in principle, since the satellite firm can wait. Schulman’s refusal exploits that leverage by making the wait longer.
Standards bodies and test labs are working to make that waiting game shorter. Work on non-terrestrial network validation, such as the effort in KTL and Keysight’s NR-NTN satellite validation, pushes the industry toward a world where ordinary phones talk to satellites through shared standards. The more standardized that link becomes, the less a satellite company needs a carrier’s cooperation.
Two Signals That Do Not Line Up Neatly
The record contains a tension worth flagging. At the investor conference, Schulman said he does not see satellite as a viable competitor in the medium and even longer term. On the earnings call, coverage has him promising to punch back hard in four to six years if SpaceX enters the market. These can both be true. Satellite alone may not threaten Verizon, while a SpaceX that owns spectrum and ground assets would.
The distinction is the heart of the story. Verizon is relaxed about satellite as a technology and wary of SpaceX as a company with the capital and ambition to build a wireless business. Readers who collapse the two will misread the CEO. The relaxed tone applies to the product category, and the combative tone applies to a specific potential entrant.
What Remains Unconfirmed
Several claims circulating around this story lack support in the current record. Treat them as open questions.
- No source confirms a specific commercial partnership between Verizon and Starlink.
- No source confirms a finalized Verizon and Starlink MVNO agreement, and Schulman publicly ruled the idea out.
- The headline claim that Schulman is personally open to a Starlink deal goes beyond the general cooperation possibilities he described.
- No report in the record states that SpaceX has asked Verizon for network access.
- The reports do not name the members of the joint venture Schulman referenced.
These gaps matter for readers acting on the news. Anyone trading on a rumored Verizon and Starlink tie-up is acting on speculation. The facts support only that Verizon sees room for complementary satellite service and refuses MVNO access.
Five Predictions for the Verizon and Starlink Relationship
The following are analytical judgments, not reported facts. They follow from the stated positions and could change if Verizon’s strategy shifts.
- The MVNO door stays shut. Schulman repeated the position twice in similar words, so a reversal in the next few quarters would be a surprise.
- Any satellite tie-up will be carrier-led. The joint-venture and direct-partnership language points to bundled offers where Verizon owns billing and the brand.
- Remote-area marketing comes first. Satellite as a coverage add-on is the easiest story for Verizon to tell and the least threatening to its core business.
- The spectrum fight stays in Washington. Carriers will keep contesting satellite access to terrestrial bands, which keeps the commercial and regulatory battles linked.
- Rivals will be asked to match Verizon’s stance. Analysts will press other carriers on whether they would extend MVNO deals to satellite providers, and their answers will show how united the industry really is.
The Takeaway for Buyers and Watchers
For ordinary customers, nothing changes today. Verizon plans no MVNO access for satellite providers, and no Verizon and Starlink bundle exists in the reports. People in remote areas who want satellite coverage still have to look at the satellite provider directly.
For industry watchers, the takeaway is the shape of the line Verizon has drawn. Cooperation is allowed if it is complementary and differentiated. Wholesale access is forbidden. A fight is coming only if SpaceX builds out as a wireless rival, and Verizon believes that is four to six years away. Watch spectrum filings, tower deals and the next earnings call for signs that the timeline is moving.
FAQ
Is Verizon partnering with Starlink?
No partnership is confirmed. Dan Schulman said Verizon sees potential ways to work with satellite providers, including Starlink, but no report documents a specific commercial deal.
Will Verizon give Starlink an MVNO deal?
No. Schulman said Verizon has no plans to give satellite providers network access through MVNO agreements and sees no benefit in doing so.
What does Verizon think satellite is good for?
Schulman said satellite has a role in remote areas with limited cellular coverage, and described it as complementary to traditional wireless service.
When did Schulman make these comments?
They were reported from Verizon’s third-quarter earnings call, covered on October 26, 2026.
What did Schulman say about competing with SpaceX?
He said Verizon intends to compete if SpaceX enters the wireless market, and coverage quoted him looking forward to punching back in four to six years.
What is an MVNO and why does it matter here?
A mobile virtual network operator rents capacity from a host carrier and sells service under its own brand. For a satellite provider, an MVNO would offer a shortcut to ground coverage, which is why Verizon’s refusal carries weight.
