And here lies the stupidity.
Prices are 2 - 3% higher to cover CC fees, and people love it because they "get back" 1% from the CC company.
In the case of Verizon, these fees have been part of their cost of business forever, and they just wanted to add a few hundred million dollars per year to their revenue at virtually no cost. Soon they'll add a surcharge to cover the cost of their corporate jets used for executive "retreats".
it's been conjectured that a relatively small number of subscribers pay their monthly wireless bill with a CC charge. You have absolutely no proof there's a uniform across the board 2% higher rate incurred by all subscribers. So if a particular bill payer can recoup 1% of their payment with no explicit surcharge, why should they decline? As you said, the merchant fees Verizon pays to accept CC charges is already baked into their business model; an individual's choice of payment doesn't dynamically alter subscriber rates.
If anything, they probably still come out ahead after the 2% juice vs. somebody mailing in a check to be physically handled. As you do allude to, this is a case of VZ Wireless wanting to eat their cake and have it too (encourage people to sign up for auto-pay, less need for phone agents to accept a CC payment). They're within their legal right to levy the surcharge but they should've anticipated backlash, especially after the well-publicized LTE outage that dinged their normally solid network's reputation.