Verizon is pulling back on its traditional landline service and FiOS expansion to continue focusing on its more-profitable wireless service.

Verizon Communications’ landline customers will endure continued cost cutting as the company focuses on its increasingly profitable wireless division, now set to bring in even more profits with Verizon Wireless’ transition to new, often higher-priced service plans.

Verizon executive vice-president and chief financial officer Fran Shammo yesterday told investors attending Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Media’s Communications & Entertainment Conference that the company is pleased with Verizon Wireless’ successful transition to Share Everything, which includes a shared data plan for multiple wireless devices.

Shammo characterized the true nature of Share Everything as a data plan that happens to include unlimited calling and messaging.

“It really comes down to data consumption and that is what drives revenue,” Shammo told investors. “And really the reason we did this was because we saw what happened in Asia with some of the text messaging and the dilution and voice migration.  So you are protecting that revenue stream going forward and we think that is beneficial to the consumer and the company.”

Shammo sees increased profits in Verizon’s future as customers transitioning away from unlimited data plans eventually bump up and over their new plan limits. But the revenue gains actually begin the moment customers sign up, as those bringing various wireless devices to a shared data plan are immediately told to upgrade for a larger data allowance at an additional cost.

“We are telling them that they really need 2GB per device,” Shammo said. “So if they want to bring five devices, they really should be buying the 10GB ($60/month) plan. What we are finding is customers are very receptive to that formula because they can get their head around the 2 gigabytes. They understand what their usage is. So part of it is that they are actually buying higher up packages than we’ve anticipated.”

Verizon also has a plan to deal with potential bill shock from customers using their wireless devices for high bandwidth applications. The company is receptive to letting content producers pay Verizon to cover customer usage charges.

Share Everything = a data plan that happens to include unlimited calling and messaging

“So when you look at that, revenue per account may not go up, but service revenue will because you are just getting it from someone else,” Shammo said. “So the LTE network allows the differentiation, and the way I like to classify it as you can have an 800 service over here, which is ‘free data’ because somebody else is paying for that and then you have your consumption data over here.”

Shammo believes customers who gave up their unlimited data plan believing Verizon’s basic data allowance will suffice for years to come will be surprised at how fast they will hit their limits as wireless data becomes more important.

“I think we are going to see this accretion faster than people think,” Shammo said. “If you look at our SpectrumCo [cable operators Cox, Comcast, Bright House Networks, and Time Warner Cable] deal, [CEO Lowell McAdam] and the team did an outstanding job convincing the Department of Justice about the innovation that can happen here and maybe being the first in the world to really integrate wireless with inside the home and content outside the home. And if you think about how that content can be streamed outside the home within cars, you really say this is unlimited as to where this can go. So I think the innovation is going to come very, very quickly here.”

With the spectrum deal with cable operators in place, Shammo said Verizon will not be in the market for any large spectrum acquisitions in the near future, and even plans to sell off some excess spectrum it does not currently need, so long as the company gets paid what it believes the spectrum is worth.

Verizon’s concern for keeping large amounts of cash on hand is evident as it continues to reduce investments in traditional landline service and FiOS. In fact, Verizon said it would continue increasing prices for its FiOS fiber network to more closely align with the higher prices cable companies are charging.

“We have really concentrated this year on getting our price points equivalent to where the rest of the market was,” Shammo said. “We were actually underpriced with a superior product to cable. So the concerted effort was we needed to do some price-ups and we are doing that over — we started in the first quarter. We did it in the second; we are doing it in the third. You saw some of that benefit come through in the second quarter where we delivered a 2.5% mass-market revenue increase, which was I think the best in years and I see that doubling by year-end. So I think that, coming out of this year, we will be on a very good path for a mass-market revenue increase.”

Two service calls in six months may get your traditional landline canceled and moved to Verizon FiOS phone service, which requires 10 digit dialing for every number.

But those rate increases will not deliver improved service. If fact, Shammo said Verizon will continue reducing costs and investments in its network. Much of its investment in the landline business has been to support Verizon Wireless’ growth through its IP backbone and fiber-to-cell-tower projects. Shammo predicts capital investments will continue to be flat to down.

One example where the cost-cutting is apparent is how Verizon deals with service calls for troubled phone lines.

Verizon landline customers in FiOS areas who report chronic service problems may find themselves disconnected and switched to FiOS Voice over IP phone service instead, because Verizon has quietly set new in-house rules about the number of permitted service calls for each customer.

“If we have a copper customer who is what we classify as a chronic (two truck rolls in a period of six months for that copper line), I am losing money on that copper customer,” Shammo said. “So if I can take that chronic customer and move them to FiOS, I deplete the amount of operational expense to keep that customer on and now I have moved them over to the FiOS network where they get the benefit of FiOS digital voice, which is clearer.”

Once a customer gets switched to FiOS, Verizon’s marketing machine swings into action.

“I now can put their DSL service onto FiOS Internet where they now realize the speeds of FiOS and what we are seeing preliminarily is even if we take a voice and DSL customer and move them, they are starting to buy up in bundles because they are starting to see the benefit of the higher speeds,” Shammo said. “Then we open up the sales routine to go after them, now for the FiOS TV product.”

Unlimited data holdouts can leave

Shammo added Verizon is becoming more concerned than ever about long term investments that leave the company waiting years for a return.

“Lowell and I have a very concerted effort to really make sure that the investments we make are returning their invested capital in a very short period of time,” said Shammo.

That spells trouble for landline service upgrades and future FiOS expansion, which both require the company to take a long term view recouping those investments. But even Verizon’s wireless business’ capital expenses are down — by $1.3 billion through the first half of this year.

Verizon Wireless has also picked up nearly $5 billion in cost savings through restructuring, including lucrative revenue earned from new activation and upgrade fees and also tightening up on subsidized wireless phone upgrades.

For customers holding onto unlimited data plans, intending to get their money’s worth from them, Shammo has a message:

“Quite honestly, they could leave my network because you are not making much money on those.”

Phillip “Artificial Scarcity for Fun and Profits” Dampier

It would be an understatement to say I’ve heard the argument once or twice that there is simply no economic room for additional players to enter what Big Telecom companies always claim is a robustly competitive marketplace for Internet access.

Virtually every company facing inquiries from regulators, politicians, and consumers always makes the point today’s deregulated broadband playing field is an excellent example of free market competition at its best.

While they advocate for even more deregulation, oppose the entry of community-owned broadband services, and demand more spectrum from Washington lawmakers, we endure a veritable monopoly/duopoly for Internet access. Their defense, after a dismissive rolling of the eyes, is that we just don’t understand business.

Enter Tim Lee, writing for the alternate reality reader of Forbes, who decided to prove his argument by comparing broadband with Supercuts:

Being the first to build a hair-cutting shack in a particular customer’s backyard can be pretty lucrative. It gives you a de facto monopoly on that household’s haircut business. Let’s assume that it takes 4 years worth of haircuts to recoup the costs of building a shack for a particular household. While barbers will need to raise some extra capital to build the shacks, in the long run the owner of the first shack may be able to earn big monopoly rents.

Now along comes a new barber who wants to enter the hair-cutting business, but every household already has at least one hair-cutting shack. So he needs to build hair-cutting shacks in backyards where another barber has already built one. And that’s an economically precarious situation. Remember, we assumed a monopolist needs to do 4 years worth of haircuts in order to break even. But if you build a shack in a backyard that already has another barber in it, you shouldn’t expect to get more than half of the customer’s business, on average, over the long run. Not only that, but competition will push down prices, so you’ll have to do more haircuts to recover the costs of construction. So you’ll be lucky to recover your initial investment within 8 years, and it could easily take more than a decade.

And things are even worse for the third or fourth barber who builds in a particular backyard. The fourth barber will be building in a yard that already has three barbers. He can only expect to attract 25 percent of the household’s business, and strong competition among barbers means his margins will be pretty thin. It’s hard to see how he could ever recover the costs of his investment.

Brushing away the hair-cutting analogy, Lee’s point is that it is wasteful and inefficient for competitors to overbuild new networks where others already exist. The phone and cable companies that dominate the marketplace today decry additional competition as a death blow to their business models, because with so many providers fighting for customers (by lowering prices and offering better service), not every provider can sustain a profit Wall Street investors expect quarter after quarter. This argument is particularly common when attacking those dastardly socialist community-owned broadband providers they say destroy private enterprise (while unconvincingly also warning they will always fail and cost taxpayers millions on the way down). It is also why Wall Street continues to beat the drum for additional consolidation in the wireless marketplace, where anything more than AT&T and Verizon Wireless represents too much revenue destruction.

Lee does make some valid points:

1. Infrastructure costs are the biggest expense in launching a new network, especially wiring the last mile to customers;
2. Verizon FiOS overestimated its potential market share and found it harder to turn a profit than first anticipated;
3. Other utilities have avoided building redundant networks (ie. you don’t have two companies providing their own electric, water, and gas lines).

When communities decide to offer their own broadband service, incumbent cable and phone companies spend big bucks to scare residents.

But Lee’s conclusion is entirely favorable to the industry he often defends — that is just the way things are and customers should not expect anything better.

Those arguments are usually also the basis for free market declarations that if a private company cannot find a way to deliver a service at a profit, then those left out will just have to do without.

Thankfully, despite Lee’s criticism of Google Fiber in Kansas City as “extremely wasteful,” the search engine company is perhaps best positioned of all to turn the industry’s common refrain against new competition on its head.

Every so often, a surprising third party shows up with the resources to ignore Wall Street’s conventional wisdom. Enter the deep pockets of Google Fiber or a bond-backed community provider threatening to deliver service far better than what a community currently enjoys. The predictable defense from incumbent providers:

• Nobody needs faster broadband speeds;
• Community networks are a government takeover of the Internet;
• Fiber optics are expensive and represent an unnecessary investment;
• Public broadband destroys private investment and jobs at incumbent commercial providers;
• This is just a political stunt, not a real effort at taking Internet speeds to the next level.

Without the kind of competition on offer from Google, community providers, and private providers like Verizon taking a chance on FiOS fiber optics, there would be no room for innovation in the marketplace.

Provider tolerance for today’s marketplace duopoly and the lackluster service that results is reminiscent of a joke told by President George W. Bush’s in 2000: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.”

It is easy for today’s comfortable duopoly providers to take shots at would-be competitors while dragging their feet on network upgrades. They have little to fear with Wall Street on their side, joining opposition to new competition as harmful to profits. Even Verizon Communications, one of the two dominant providers, quickly heard from analysts irritated with the infrastructure expenses involved upgrading to a fiber optic network. At the heart of that criticism was a sense it was an unnecessary expense, with no reason to change the safe and reliable status quo. Innovation that costs money is the enemy of Wall Street, unless competition warrants the investment.

Therein lies the key. Effective, disruptive competition demands companies do something different. Lee may be right that three companies cannot easily bring home the big profits. Wall Street may have to make do with less. In a competitive market, the player offering the least will be the first to innovate to keep or attract customers, or eventually close their doors. Those remaining will compete in turn to deliver the best possible service at the lowest possible price. That itself is a departure from the comfort zone enjoyed by phone and cable operators today where neither feels much pressure. Cable companies won’t ever compete with other cable companies and the same is true for phone companies. But if a company like Google arrives, the decade-long coffee break is over.

Want proof? Just look at cable operators struggling to keep video customers who are now finding alternatives with Netflix and online viewing. They are increasingly looking for ways to enhance the value of cable television by offering online viewing themselves. Even rate increases have slowed. If Netflix and cord-cutting were not factors, would cable companies have changed the way they do business?

Google’s marketplace disruption delivers for consumers.

Lee is right saying it is not easy to break into the broadband business. Only some might realize the same investors and Wall Street barons that dislike profit-eroding competition also often happen to be in the business of loaning money to finance new businesses. More than a few will turn those loans down as too risky to contemplate.

But here comes the rhetorical trap Lee’s argument gets ensnared in: If running redundant networks is wasteful and we still need competition, the logical solution would be to construct or nationalize one advanced network on which all providers would market their services. Why waste time and money on duplicate copper and coaxial networks when a single fiber to the home network could deliver improved service well beyond what the local phone and cable company can offer.

Isn’t the answer to run a single telecommunications line into customer homes (one preferably not controlled by any provider), and let competition bloom on that advanced infrastructure? That is the solution Australia has chosen, scrapping the country’s ancient copper wire phone lines in favor of one national fiber network. Most community providers also operate open networks that other cable and phone companies can utilize (but often petulantly refuse).

Somehow, despite the enormous savings possible from sharing or offloading network infrastructure expenses, I doubt providers will consider that the kind of innovation they want or need.

On important issues for the online community, there are some substantial differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly regarding Net Neutrality.

A review of the yas and nays in both party platforms (and past history in Congress) shows your vote can make a difference when Washington ultimately deals with privacy, network traffic, piracy, cybersecurity, and broadband expansion.

Net Neutrality – “Preserving the free and open Internet”: Prohibits providers from discriminating against different types of network traffic for profit or control

• Democrats: Yas
• Republicans: Nay

While the Democratic platform specifically states, “President Obama is strongly committed to protecting an open Internet,” one “that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and free speech,” Republicans have treated Net Neutrality as anathema to the free market. Although virtually every Republican member of Congress has voted against Net Neutrality or publicly opposed the concept, some Democrats have as well, particularly those who have received significant financial contributions from the largest phone and cable companies lobbying against the policy.

Net Neutrality has not proved to be a major issue in Congress this year, with most of the recent battles taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski applauded a ‘third way’ for Net Neutrality, staking out a middle-of-the-road policy that pleased few outside of the FCC. It largely leaves the concept a “suggestion” for wireless carriers. Replete with loopholes and enforcement issues, even wired providers like Comcast have run around the policy for their own benefit.

Network Privacy – Full disclosure when websites track your browsing habits, and how online companies protect your private information

• Democrats: Yas, provisionally
• Republicans: Yas, provisionally

Net privacy is a topic many consumers hear about the most when a website gets hacked and private customer information is stolen in the process. But a growing number of consumers are also concerned about what websites are doing with their information and how their web visits are being tracked for advertising purposes. Large online companies like Facebook and Google have a vested interest in keeping this space as unregulated as possible to maintain lucrative revenue earned selling demographic information to advertisers. But consumers may not want advertisers to know the websites they visit, and members of both political parties have expressed growing interest in taming who gets their hands on your private stuff. Republicans are primarily concerned about tracking by government agencies, Democrats are more concerned with for-profit use of customer data.

The Republican platform abhors government intrusion into private liberty — primarily a reference to certain forms of surveillance. But the GOP platform is silent on enhancing privacy rights of consumers. The Obama Administration has been calling for a “Privacy Bill of Rights” that permits consumers to opt out of web tracking cookies and other tracking technology. Democrats separately want companies to do a better job disclosing and explaining how private information is being used. But Congress, under heavy lobbying to avoid the issue, never acted on the administration’s request.

Expanding Broadband: Finding New Wireless Spectrum and Improved Rural Access

• Democrats: Yas on both
• Republicans: Yas on one, vacillating  on the other

While neither party fully embraces their respective platforms while governing, their stated positions often reflect political positioning when new laws are contemplated.

The Democrats tout both their National Broadband Plan and the Obama Administration’s commitment to find Internet access for 98 percent of the country and expand spectrum available to meet the growing demands for wireless data. The Democratic platform touted President Obama’s proposal to promote wireless broadband as a possible rural Internet solution.

The Republican party platform on technology gives little credit to the Obama Administration’s handling of all-things-high-tech and demands a wholesale deregulation effort to free the hands of service providers, get rid of Net Neutrality, and sell off wireless spectrum to boost wireless communications.

The platform authors are particularly incensed about Net Neutrality, a policy that requires providers to treat Internet content equally on their networks. Some Republicans have previously called that “a government takeover of the Internet,” telling providers what they can and cannot provide customers. Vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) fiercely opposes Net Neutrality. In 2011, he supported a resolution disapproving of the policy and in 2006 he voted against an amendment to a bill that would have codified it into federal law.

“The most vibrant sector of the American economy, indeed, one-sixth of it, is regulated by the federal government on precedents from the Nineteenth Century. Today’s technology and telecommunications industries are overseen by the FCC, established in 1934 and given the jurisdiction over telecommunications formerly assigned to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had been created in 1887 to regulate the railroads. This is not a good fit,” the Republican platform states. “Indeed, the development of telecommunications advances so rapidly that even the Telecom Act of 1996 is woefully out of date.”

Mitt Romney is an ardent deregulator. Under a plan favored by the Republican presidential candidate, agencies like the Federal Communications Commission would be required to offset the cost of any new regulations by eliminating existing regulations. Additionally, Romney plans to issue an executive order as president telling all agencies they must notify Congress about any forthcoming regulations and wait for the House and Senate to approve them before they could take effect. With the current level of Congressional gridlock, a consensus to approve any new regulatory policy is unlikely. The end effect would likely be a near-moratorium on government regulation.

The Republican platform also attacked the Obama Administration for failing to expand broadband to rural areas, but offered nothing beyond generalities about “public-private partnerships” on how to expand broadband to the unserved.

Romney

“That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers,” the platform said. “We encourage public-private partnerships to provide predictable support for connecting rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

One can infer from the language in the document Republicans are opposed to public broadband initiatives.

The Republicans also promise to accelerate public spectrum sell-offs to private companies through auctions to expand the number of frequencies available for wireless communications.

The Obama Administration defends its telecommunications policies, noting the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s broadband stimulus program have identified unserved areas, despite provider obfuscation, and targeted funding to open up new broadband opportunities. The administration also says it has effectively reformed the Universal Service Fund into a new Connect America Fund that will underwrite prohibitively expensive rural broadband expansion projects.

The White House also defends its spectrum policies noting existing spectrum still has licensed users that face lengthy and often costly transitions to other frequencies to clear space for cell phone companies. Still, President Obama ordered the FCC to find 500MHz of spectrum to reallocate to wireless communications and the FCC plans the first ever incentive auction that will let TV stations voluntarily surrender their frequencies in return for financial incentives.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns oppose efforts to internationalize Internet regulatory policy through organizations like the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union. Some governments have stepped up their efforts to lobby for a transition away from Internet policies they see dominated by the United States.

Democrats are also considering Internet language in their party platform for the party’s upcoming convention next month.

Insiders at the Federal Communications Commission have leaked word all five commissioners have cast their votes in favor of a controversial partnership deal between Verizon Wireless and the nation’s largest cable operators to cross-market products and services to customers.

Three Democrats and two Republicans have approved both the marketing agreement and a spectrum transfer deal from cable operators to Verizon Wireless.  Republicans did not approve of an order mandating a data roaming obligation or the recognition the FCC has the authority to oversee the marketing agreement, but both will remain part of the final order.

The Justice Department earlier approved the modified deal that includes a time limit on the marketing partnership and restricts certain cross-marketing in FiOS-wired areas.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said the spectrum transfer was urgently needed to address wireless spectrum shortages. But consumer groups opposed the deal, calling it anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Some unions also say the deal comes close to collusion and will lead to Verizon further pulling back from its fiber upgrade FiOS in favor of selling cable subscriptions.