Forbes magazine reports that Verizon Wireless shareholders can expect the company to enjoy fatter profits and reduced capital expenses from the upcoming deletion of grandfathered unlimited data from the company’s roster of data plans.

Trefis, a Wall Street analysis firm that uses MIT-developed modeling technology to predict future company performance, reports Verizon is on the verge of “monetizing every last byte of data that is transferred on its network.”

Verizon’s decision to end unlimited — announced by the company’s chief financial officer at a recent Wall Street conference, will compel customers upgrading to a 4G-capable phone to forfeit their unlimited plan in favor of tiered data.

With Verizon’s 4G network up and running in a large cross section of the country, the wireless carrier has an interest in moving customers to its more efficient LTE platform, which can sustain greater data traffic. With a de-emphasis on 3G, Verizon will be able to reduce capital investments required to maintain that older technology, yet enjoy the financial benefits monetized data usage will bring.

Verizon also plans to introduce shared family data plans, letting customers share a single usage allowance across multiple data devices. But Trefis warns Verizon it must avoid pricing that plan too low, because it could cannibalize the average fees collected from each subscriber (ARPU) who would otherwise have to pay Verizon for a data plan for every device. Instead, Trefis recommends Verizon price family share data plans in a way that keeps ARPU levels stable, which means consumers would not see much savings from the plans.

More importantly, shared data plans will set the stage for explosive wireless data revenue growth in the future, as customers get used to paying connectivity charges for every wireless device, appliance, automobile, and other future technology that supports so-called “machine-to-machine data exchanges” that could become commonplace in the next few years.

“Done right, Verizon could see higher ARPU levels in the coming years as subscribers increasingly use data intensive applications on its speedier 4G network and the carrier is able to monetize every byte of data that the subscribers use with its tiered data buckets,” Trefis recommends.

Verizon FiOS standalone broadband customers choosing the company’s standard service will see rate increases of $10 a month starting June 17, but those upgraded to the company’s premium speed tiers, which are getting much faster, may not see any rate hike at all.

The Verge received word from an anonymous Verizon employee who passed along the rate hike information that will apply to broadband-only customers:

• Standard 15/5Mbps service: (Was $54.99/mo) now up $10 to $64.99
• 50/25Mbps service: (Was $74.99/mo for 25/25Mbps) remains $74.99
• 75/35Mbps service: (New offer) $84.99
• 150/65Mbps service: (Was $94.99/mo for 50/20Mbps) remains $94.99
• 300/65Mbps service: (Was $199.99/mo for 150/35Mbps) now $204.99

All new pricing requires a two-year contract (month-to-month service costs $5/mo more) and home phone service with Verizon (or pay a $5/mo surcharge). Speeds of 150 or 300Mbps require a 2-4 hour service call and upgrade fee of $100 for new equipment unless you are on a two-year contract, are a new customer, or already have Verizon’s 150Mbps service. Customers living in multi-dwelling units served by VDSL and not fiber-to-the-apartment will pay the new higher price for standard service, but cannot receive the new enhanced speed tiers.

With the majority of Verizon customers paying only for standard speed service, Verizon will pocket significantly higher revenue for broadband. But customers need not pay for more expensive a-la-carte broadband. Verizon offers significant discounts for customers who sign up for triple play packages on phone, Internet, and television service. Bundled customers continue to get the most bang for the buck, but not if you don’t use the services Verizon wants to sell.

Jonathan Takiff, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News says he isn’t buying at the prices Verizon is charging.

I also was disappointed with the announcement that Verizon will continue to offer entry level FiOS Internet running at  15/5 Mbps. If the operation has such superior technology and capacity, why not flaunt it and give us casual users more headroom?  Even with its old school coaxial cable network, Xfinity service starts at 20 Mbps down.

Clearly, Verizon hopes  to up-sell customers to a higher, more profitable tier. And they’re using that grandiose 300 Mbps offering as an attention getter, to get folks thinking more aspirationally. Kinda like the way a car company throws a high powered, ridiculously priced, super flashy sports car into the showroom mix. Makes you go for the bigger engine in the econobox.

[…] What’s a good deal for Internet service on a global basis? In front-running Japan, the  average service runs at 61 Mbps and costs 27 cents per megabit, per month. While not quite as dramatic,  Internet services in South Korea, Finland and France also make U.S. providers look like stingy bastards.

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)

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.