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.

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.

Dispensing with “all-you-can-eat” data plans was the first step towards monetizing mobile broadband. Now some mobile operators are considering how to implement stage two: charging different pricing for different online applications to boost profits.

At the TM Forum Management World conference in Dublin, Ireland, mobile operators discussed managing and monetizing data usage, charging customers different rates for using various online services and applications. Total Telecom covered the conference and found mobile operators conjuring up new pricing schemes to maximize revenue opportunities.

Vikram Chadha, senior marketing director at United Arab Emirates-based Du, offered that mobile operators should bill for video traffic separately from standard data.

″Video is another beast,″ Chadha told the audience of executives. ″Operators need to look at video data in a totally different manner. It’s important to treat video as a different data element.″

Monetizing video streaming can “get high value out of that customer,” Chadha said.

Chadha

He also believes as general browser traffic declines, real money can be made charging different rates for customers accessing different apps. Providers could charge higher data pricing when customers use certain non-preferred apps, at the same time discounting traffic from apps that partner with wireless phone companies.

Chadha pointed to NTT DoCoMo’s partnership with Hulu. Both Hulu and the service provider market the service, with the one making the sale the beneficiary of most of the proceeds. That technically takes revenue away from Hulu and diverts it to NTT, which can engineer customized marketing efforts to target customers for the service.

But it does not stop there, according to Chadha. Mobile operators can generate even greater revenue by introducing Quality of Service (QoS) technology and billing customers extra for additional priority on the company’s wireless network, an important consideration for online video.

Chadha says his company now charges $1.25 for 30 minutes of video streaming from YouTube using “best available” network protocols. Customers who want to assure minimal buffering can buy a VIP Pass from Du for $2.50 for the same 30 minutes, and get priority on Du’s network.

″The [VIP pass customer] is assured of the bandwidth he gets and that gives the operator the opportunity to maximize his revenue,″ he said. ″[Apply] different QoS for different apps and you can charge differently. Or use location, and sell data more cheaply where networks are less congested, or at less busy times of day.”

Chadha’s worst enemy would be a strong Net Neutrality policy, which would prohibit operators from discriminating against or prioritizing different types of traffic. None of these pricing schemes would likely work if Du provided a flat rate mobile service either.

In the absence of such net protections, revenue and profit opportunities abound.

″Application-based charging is going to be very important and so is value-based charging,″ he predicted.

Data provided by OSHA statistics

A new joint investigation by Frontline and ProPublica reveals serious lapses in safety for America’s cell tower workers, a career now considered one of the most hazardous and life-threatening in America.

In the last eight years, 50 climbers have died, with many more injured installing and servicing cell sites for AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The investigation finds many of these deaths and injuries were preventable, but as America’s profitable cell phone companies outsource jobs to cut-rate subcontractors (and the sub-contractors they often use themselves), safety measures take a back seat to low-ball bidding and profits.

Efforts to hold companies accountable are stymied by the byzantine layers of third party companies hired to do the work, an under-equipped federal safety agency, and difficulty assessing where the responsibility lies when things go wrong.

From ProPublica and Frontline:

From their perch atop the contracting chain, carriers typically set many of the crucial parameters for work on cell sites, including deadlines, pay rates and even technical specifications, down to the exact degree an antenna should be angled. An analysis of cell tower deaths by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed that tight timetables and financial pressure often led workers to take fatal shortcuts or to work under unsafe conditions.

“We’ve had a number of situations where we think that accidents were caused by companies trying to meet deadlines and … cutting corners on safety in order to meet those deadlines,” said Jordan Barab, OSHA’s deputy administrator.

But Barab said it’s difficult for the agency to hold cell companies responsible for safety violations involving subcontractors. In most cases, federal officials have interpreted OSHA regulations to mean that carriers can be held accountable only if they exercised direct control over subcontractors’ work or were aware of specific unsafe conditions.

OSHA has not sanctioned cell carriers for safety violations implicated in any subcontractor deaths on cell sites since 2003, a review of agency records by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” found.

Most of OSHA’s enforcement efforts have focused on a transient cast of small subcontractors, though they, too, typically have eluded significant penalties. Over the last nine years, the median fine levied for safety violations linked to a fatal tower accident was $3,750, an analysis by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” showed.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Frontline Cell Tower Deaths 5-23-12.flv[/flv]

Watch this segment from PBS Frontline exploring ‘Cell Tower Deaths,’ and what can be done to stop them.  (30 minutes)

Northern Minnesota's Paul Bunyan Communications is threatened by FCC reforms that they claim favor larger phone companies.

Northern Minnesotans will have to wait longer for broadband after a telephone co-op announced it was suspending its $19 million broadband expansion project because funding is being diverted to more powerful phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — neither of which have any concrete plans to improve rural wired broadband.

Bemidji-based Paul Bunyan Communications, which serves 28,000 hearty Minnesota customers, has been working on broadband expansion for several years, bringing broadband to customers who have known nothing except dial-up since the Internet age began. Only now the project is threatened because of well-intentioned plans by the Federal Communications Commission to expand rural broadband, but in ways that cater primarily to larger phone companies that lobbied heavily for the changes.

At issue is Universal Service Fund reform, which plans to divert an increasing share of the surcharge all telephone customers pay away from rural basic phone service and towards broadband expansion in rural America.

Paul Bunyan used their share of USF funding to scrap the company’s existing, antiquated copper-wire network in favor of fiber optics. Other phone companies have traditionally used the money to keep their existing networks running. Now the independent phone company says large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have successfully changed the rules in their favor, and will now benefit from a larger share of those funds, ostensibly to expand broadband to their rural customers.

Bissonette (Courtesy: MPR)

But neither AT&T or Verizon have shown much interest in rural broadband upgrades. AT&T, which recently announced it concluded its U-verse rollout in larger cities, has also thrown up its hands about how to deal with the “rural broadband problem” and plans no substantial expansion of the company’s DSL service.

Verizon also announced it had largely completed the expansion of FiOS, a fiber to the home service. Verizon has also been discouraging customers from considering its DSL service by limiting it only to customers who also subscribe to landline phone service.

Verizon Wireless has introduced a wireless home broadband replacement that costs considerably more than traditional DSL, starting at $60 a month for up to 10GB of usage.

As a result of the funding changes, Paul Bunyan is reconsidering plans to expand its broadband, phone and television services to Kjenaas and about 4,000 other residents in rural Park Rapids and a township near Grand Rapids.

It may also have to cut workers.

“It’s kind of ironic,” Paul Bunyan’s Brian Bissonette tells Minnesota Public Radio. “The mantra of these changes is to create jobs. It’s killing jobs.”

Minnesota Public Radio explores how rural Minnesota broadband is being threatened by a telecom industry-influenced plan to divert funding to larger companies like AT&T and Verizon for rural broadband expansion those companies have no plans to deliver. (May 23, 2012) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.