This monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident.

Kirkland, Que. residents are encouraged by news Rogers Communications has begun to relent on installing nearly-15 meter-high monopole cell towers in residential neighborhoods after the company agreed to relocate a similar antenna in Dorval.

Neighbors in both communities are upset Rogers has located new antennas that tower over homes and trees in residential areas, often in the backyards of residents who permit their presence in return for a monthly check.

The Dorval tower was particularly obtrusive to residents, installed in a city right-of-way adjacent to Morris Avenue. Residents there complained about possible health effects of the nearby tower, and called it an eyesore.

Rogers has now agreed to relocate the antenna to the nearby Sarto Desnoyers Community Centre at company expense.

When the new towers suddenly appear, nearby neighbors feel sandbagged. One Kirkland resident told The Gazette the towers are monstrosities. But Rogers is within the law if it keeps the towers below the 15 meter mark, and the company does not require advance zoning or government approval.

Rogers defends the towers, claiming the unprecedented demand for cellular service requires the company to get creative in finding new places to fill in coverage gaps. Unfortunately, with a shrinking number of suitable commercial or industrial locations, the company has been forced to consider residential installations.

Stop the Cap! has been following the Kirkland tower saga for several weeks. The Gazette reports no immediate progress has been made to get Rogers to relocate that specific antenna, but the company’s responsiveness in Dorval gives local officials and residents optimism an agreement can be reached in Kirkland as well.

Consolidation of the wireless industry into two or three mega-carriers is a dream come true… if you are one of those carriers (or Wall Street). But for everyone else, it’s a competition wasteland, where innovation and disruptive marketing wane into comfortable and predictable businesses where participants learn not to rock the boat. If they did, a lot of their accumulated money could fall overboard.

AT&T believes consolidation is already upon us, despite their setback in failing to acquire T-Mobile USA.

John Stephens, AT&T’s chief financial officer, tried to calm Wall Street’s fears that the government has signaled its intent to preserve robust competition.  At yesterday’s Nomura investment conference, Stephens said a reduction in the number of wireless companies in the United States is part of the natural order:

I think it is just logical that the industry is going to consolidate in some form or fashion. I think the marketplace has spoken to that with what it has done to pricing in the valuations on some of the companies. From an economic perspective and a highly CapEx-intensive business, I think it is logical to assume you’re going to have two or three and certainly not six and seven competitors in any marketplace. So I think consolidation is logical.

We’ve heard this argument before. It is commonly trotted out in opposition to community broadband initiatives when existing phone and cable companies fear a third player will ruin the market for everyone. AT&T joins the chorus with the same old excuses: the costs to build and run networks are too high for several players to comfortably compete. Consolidation reduces that pressure as customers are forced to choose among one or two providers, giving each a larger market share and healthier revenue to cover upgrades.

What companies like AT&T always obscure to their customers is the resulting pricing power, where price increases from one often lead to price increases from others. But Stephens has no trouble letting his investors know:

We are going to grow margins year-over-year. Last year’s margins were about 38.5% in wireless and our guidance says we are going to grow. I have said publicly, and some of my peers and coworkers have said publicly we expect we are going to have north of 40% margins this year in our wireless business and still believe that.

Margins = profits. In the absence of aggressive competition which forces companies to invest more in their networks, provide more value in their service offerings, or reduce pricing, increased profits are always the result.

Unfortunately, ZDNet’s editor in chief Larry Dignan seems to buy AT&T’s arguments and talking points, telling readers:

[…] It’s hard to argue against the idea. All industries boil down to two or three players eventually. The big question for wireless consolidation is timing. When will get to two or three carriers? And if so will this consolidation lead to price increases or will the mergers occur after wireless services is commoditized?

Stephens

It is actually very easy to argue against the idea, and the evidence is plainly visible if Dignan would take a look.

First, there is no evidence “all industries boil down to two or three players eventually.” Auto companies, banks, retailers of all kinds — even cell phone manufacturers all compete with more than just one or two other players in the market. A germinating monopoly or duopoly in any market is a signal federal regulators have failed to do the job assigned to them since the days of trust-busting railroads, oil, steel, and the securities business.

The drive to consolidation can be found first on Wall Street, where every industry is under pressure to cut costs, reduce profit-eroding competition, and return higher profits. The drumbeat for consolidation in the wireless industry starts there, is echoed in the executive offices of the cell phone companies themselves, and results in powerhouse deals that have picked off one competitor after another. That is why Cingular, Alltel, Cellular One, and Centennial Communications are no longer familiar names in wireless. They have all been swallowed nearly whole by AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

AT&T would argue that consolidation is a good thing, because through their willingness to sell, those companies indicated they wanted to exit the business. AT&T’s buyout of T-Mobile would have done everyone a favor because the company had lost interest in competing in the United States and wanted out.

The industry has held all of the cards of wireless consolidation until recently, primarily because supine regulators refused to provide a critical “check and balance” on industry pressure, accepting just about any premise to approve whatever wireless carriers wanted. Sure, a few companies had to divest certain assets, as Verizon Wireless did in certain Alltel markets. But AT&T ended up acquiring the majority of those divested territories. When AT&T bought Centennial Wireless, it had to divest a few markets in the southern United States. Verizon Wireless bought most of them. Customers were left in the middle, as always.

A remarkable thing happened when the federal government said no to AT&T over T-Mobile. Predictions of the smaller carrier’s imminent demise and its slow bleed to irrelevance has not happened. In fact, Deutsche Telekom picked its American asset up, shook the dust off, and is now investing in upgrades to keep the competition coming. At least $4 billion in improvements and some major network upgrades are on the way, and the company has even refreshed its marketing in a new, get-tough campaign against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint. Now all three of those companies are watching to see what T-Mobile pulls next.

That is exactly the point.

The wireless world and Wall Street wants you to believe that consolidation is the only way the mobile phone marketplace of 2012 can work. Dignan has thrown in the towel, conceding they are likely right. But T-Mobile is proving they are exactly wrong. Instead of abandoning its asset, which DT still sees as valuable, it is investing in it to compete. Had the merger been approved, AT&T would never answer T-Mobile’s disruptive competition again. Rural America would still be waiting for better service. AT&T would have less pressure to keep prices down and upgrades up, and Wall Street would have turned its attention to the next targeted carrier ripe for the picking by AT&T or Verizon Wireless’ emerging duopoly.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WRC Washington Bitten by Gigabytes 5-21-12.flv[/flv]

WRC-TV decided to visit with local Washington, D.C. consumers and ask them if they knew what a “gigabyte” was and how many they were using on their cell phone data plan.  Few knew, and even fewer wanted to know, preferring to pay a flat price for worry-free, unlimited data service. Unfortunately, AT&T and Verizon have discontinued their unlimited data plans (Verizon is preparing to throw people off of grandfathered plans when customers upgrade their phones), and T-Mobile throttles customer speeds to near-dial-up after their monthly allowance is reached. Only Sprint sells truly unlimited data, but many customers find Sprint’s data speeds lacking. Consumer reporter Liz Crenshaw visits with Public Knowledge to help educate consumers about what the average 2GB plan really buys.  (3 minutes)

Customers promised big savings from dropping their old Verizon plans found tricks, traps, and speed reductions.

Beware of telemarketers bearing gifts.

Frontier Communications has embarked on a sales push to convince customers adopted from Verizon Communications to “upgrade” their grandfathered Verizon broadband plans to new offerings from Frontier.

But Stop the Cap! has received more than a dozen complaints from customers who discovered their broadband speeds were slashed, sometimes significantly, after taking Frontier up on one of their offers.

“Whenever you call Frontier customer service, they always have an offer for you that they claim will save you money and I fell for it,” Tim Falston says.

Falston has been a Stop the Cap! reader since he learned Frontier Communications was buying out his Verizon landline in 2010.

“Frontier promised me nothing would change after they took over from Verizon, but of course a lot changed when I agreed to switch to a new bundled service package Frontier was offering for my phone and Internet service,” Falston writes.

Falston thought he was keeping his 8Mbps DSL service Verizon had been selling him for nearly five years, only now he would save at least $10 a month bundling some of Frontier’s other products into his package. A few days after signing up, he found his broadband speeds were lacking. It turned out Frontier reduced his speed to just under 3Mbps. A few days later, the company also mailed him a new DSL modem/router that he later learned came with a monthly fee that more than wiped out his “savings.”

“This was the worst decision I ever made, and Frontier never warned me the package I was signing up for cut my speeds more than half and stuck me with a modem I don’t want or need,” Falston said.

Unfortunately, when Falston called Frontier to switch back to his old plan, he was told it was no longer available and he had to choose from Frontier’s current services that came with higher prices and term contracts.

Surprise! Modem rental fee!

“It’s bait and switch and should be illegal,” Falston said. “I was told that everything about my service was to stay the same if I agreed to their bundle, and I think they figured most people have no idea about speeds and just accept what they are given, but I was never told about the modem or the rental fee that comes with it, and my old Verizon equipment worked just fine.”

Frontier won’t even sell Falston 8Mbps service, even though he had it for half a decade.

“They want to sell me 3Mbps and tell me that is all my line will support,” Falston complains. “That was after I finally convinced them to talk to me — the account is in the wife’s name and Frontier blocked me because of ‘security reasons’ until they spoke with her.”

Stop the Cap! recommended Falston schedule a service call and speak to a local technician about the problem. Experience shows employees on the ground far away from the customer service department can often cut through Frontier’s red tape. That worked for Falston who quickly got his old Verizon plan back after the technician made a few phone calls from Falston’s home.

“The tech shook his head and said he deals with these problems all day long and has managed to get customers back on old plans Frontier’s customer service says are long gone,” Falston said. “He told me specifically ‘do not change any plans you signed up for with Verizon — all of the offers from Frontier come at higher prices and fewer features.'”

So if Frontier has an offer you cannot refuse, refuse it anyway, at least if your old phone company was Verizon Communications. You are probably better off with what you have today.

Despite claims from some of their competitors that customers don’t want or need super-fast broadband, Verizon Communications is taking broadband speeds to the new level, upgrading service to as high as 300Mbps in selected areas.

Our friends at Broadband Reports had the scoop on this a few weeks ago, but now it’s official: speed -and- price increases for Verizon are on the way for the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

Many customers will see their broadband speeds double or more in June. At the same time, the company has been sending out letters informing customers of price increases, often $5 a month for those not locked into service contracts.

Verizon's Speed Upgrade Chart (Courtesy: Broadband Reports)

Verizon’s new top tier of 300/65Mbps will be introduced in areas that have Verizon’s Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON). Pricing has not yet been announced.

The company is targeting its speed upgrades to premium broadband customers who subscribe to faster tiers. Customers on Verizon’s standard 15/5Mbps tier will see no changes in service.