Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Wednesday he supports a Senate resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Committee’s net neutrality rules, which could be voted on today.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (Pic via Facebook)

The resolution would repeal the net neutrality rules issued last year that go into effect this month. Net neutrality is the idea that consumers should have access to all Internet content and services, and not by limited by Internet service providers “that want to treat them differently so they can charge you more depending on what you use.”

Net neutrality has encountered opposition, with Verizon announcing a law suit against the FCC, “saying the regulations are too stringent and go beyond the agency’s authority.”

Julius Genachowski, chariman of the FCC, said in written statement (.pdf) before the rules were approved:

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order.

Matt Wood — policy director for Free Press, which manages the Save the Internet campaign — tells The Florida Independent that if the Senate resolution becomes law, the FCC “would not be able to adopt regulations on that issue again without further authorizations by Congress; if it does pass into law it would take away even more of the FCC’s power to oversee broadband and protect consumers online.”

Wood adds that repeal of FCC rules “would allow [Internet service providers] to block consumers from websites, from lawful content of  your choice, block and charge you more to access certain sites, speed up certain sites or slow others down.”

“With bandwidth caps that are now being adopted by many companies, we would argue that with the [FCC] rules in place,” a company could not “count a competitor’s content against their own cap,” Wood tells the Independent.

“To put that in real terms: Today for instance if Comcast has a bandwidth cap,” Wood explains, “these rules prevent [a company] from saying, ‘Well all your Netflix video counts against your cap, but if you want to stream videos from Comcast that comes free, without counting against the cap.’”

Wood says that without current FCC rules, Internet service providers “could privilege their own content, forcing consumers to either pay more, or run the risk of going over the monthly allotment of data by choosing content from a competitor, instead of getting it straight from Comcast, Verizon or whoever their ISP is.”

A study released by the Institute for Policy Integrity (.pdf) in October

describes how a weakening of the principle of network neutrality might impact the Web. Based on an analysis of Internet usage, it finds that Internet infrastructure and content work together to generate huge economic benefits for consumers—possibly as much as $5,686 per user, per year.

Eliminating network neutrality, as some have proposed, may reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.

In Senate remarks, Rubio said the “Internet regulation that we are talking about here today, this regulation, would lead to lower quality of services and raise operating costs, which would result in higher prices on consumers.”

“Regulating the Internet and this specific measure we are trying today to knock down, if it passes, this specific measure will discourage that development,” Rubio argued.

According to Open Secrets Rubio has received more than $298,000 in campaign contributions from 2007 through 2012 from the communications/electronics industry, which includes Internet companies.

Watch Rubio’s remarks:

Rubio joins fellow Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas,who sponsored the resolution of disapproval in the Senate. The House version of this resolution was approved in April.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Democrat John Rockefeller stated his opposition to the resolution in a press release. Rockefeller writes that FCC rules “keep the Internet open and free.”

Rockefeller adds that FCC’s rules were the product of “extensive input from stakeholders from all quarters of the broadband economy. In fact, the FCC received written input from more than 100,000 commenters. And 90 percent of those filing supported adoption of Open Internet rules,” adding that “the rules are based on longstanding and widely accepted Open Internet principles, which were first articulated during the Bush Administration.”

Wood says that current FCC rules would maintain the Internet as it always has been, “getting gatekeepers out of the middle, and getting people to the content of their choice. We see this as necessary to make sure that Internet service providers cannot change the fundamental nature of the Internet customers have come to rely on.”

Announced in March, the proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile by wireless provider AT&T, would create the nation’s largest wireless company, putting 80 percent of the wireless market into the hands of just two companies. (Verizon is the other.)

Proponents say the deal will spur innovation and help bring service to rural areas more quickly while critics argue those promises are overstated, would likely result despite a merger and have the potential to limit service and harm those customers as the options become increasingly concentrated.

The acquisition, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, is drawing support from Texas politicians on both sides of the aisle, who share in receiving generous funds from AT&T.

In a letter addressed to the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, key lawmaker U.S Representative Lamar Smith, R-Texas, urged the federal government on Monday to “carefully weigh all of the evidence” on the proposed merger between the two telecommunication giants, reports Reuters, Politico and the National Journal:

“Recently, you have heard from members of Congress who, based on the limited information provided in congressional hearings, urged you to conclude that this merger should be blocked,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, they provided you with only one side of the story. I feel compelled to briefly point out the other side.”

While not explicitly endorsing the merger, Smith pointed to various benefits like job creation and competition, and advised agencies to consider these advantages before coming to a conclusion. Smith said other lawmakers’ objections to the merger — like worries from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., who said in July that the merger would harm to competition, consumers and fail to be in the public interest — were “one-sided” and based on limited information.

Although he and other legislators aren’t granted a direct role in reviewing the merger, Reuters notes, they can be influential in shaping public opinion, by holding hearings and providing oversight of regulatory bodies. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Smith’s agency oversees the Justice Department, where — aside from the FCC — the final decision lies.

However, Smith’s concern, writes Political Correction, is “drowned out” by his pocketbook, which sports generous donations from the two telecom companies. Smith has received $69,800 from AT&T’s PACs, making the company his second-largest benefactor over his career. Smith generated next to nothing from Sprint, the company that stands to take the greatest hit from the merger’s approval.

AT&T PACs are the first or second greatest donors for Republican chairmen heading the three House committees that oversee the merger.

Another strong supporter of the merger is U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, joined other lawmakers in signing a June letter to the FCC, supporting the deal.

Green has also benefited from AT&T funds. Since 1997 his campaign has received around $75,000 from the company’s two PACs, according to a Federal Elections Commission records. Money from Sprint’s PAC totaled less than $4,000 during this time period. In the 2010 election cycle, Green received $10,000 from AT&T, who co-hosted at least one fundraiser for the Green campaign in 2010, while letter co-signers and Texas congresmen Al Green ($10,000), Eddie Bernice Johnson ($9,000) and Rubén Hinojosa ($7,500) pocketed cash from the telecomm PAC during the same cycle,according to the Center for Responsive Politics and Paidcontent.org.

The legislators are part of a coalition of 77 Democratic lawmakers who added their signatures to the letter advocating for the merger; 66 of those names received nearly a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from AT&T.

The company was the top contributor to federal campaigns between 1990 and 2010, donating more than $45 million to candidates from both major parties while spending more than $140 million on lobbying in the last 14 years alone, according to media reform group Free Press. That organization sent a letter of its own in June to heads of the U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which includes ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, debunking some of AT&T’s promises.

“AT&T gives millions of dollars to people running for office, and then spends even more to meet with them and influence them once they take office.  All that money may or may not buy votes, but it surely buys access,” said Matt Wood, policy director of Free Press. “It’s little wonder then, perhaps, that politicians are willing to support the company and mouth AT&T talking points that run counter to the truth.”

Claims about jobs, rural coverage, service improvements, and prices made first by AT&T and later echoed by political officials, go against a cursory review of the facts, which shows AT&T’s guarantees are overblown, unrelated to the merger, or downright false, said Wood.

Meanwhile, lawmakers like Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., have been especially outspoken against the deal, calling the move a dangerous blow to competition and innovation. They have said the deal would result in job losses, higher prices, decreased choice and cause “substantial” harm to the public interest. If approved, argued Franken, the market would see an “effective duopoly.”

“It would concentrate enormous power over the entire telecommunications sector in the hands of only two companies, and it would incentivize AT&T and Verizon to coordinate prices to the detriment of consumers,” wrote Franken in a 24-page letter to the FCC. It would create an unreasonable risk to the economy to entrust too much power over such a crucial industry to a company that has a history of market domination. This transaction is not in the public interest. If approved, it would result in greatly reduced competition.”

The story began in early 2007, when McCain’s wife, Cindy, made an online request for the company to improve service at the 15-acre property — which Peter Thonis, a Verizon spokesman, said was denied. However, as The Post article demonstrates, this is not exactly true.

On Sept. 18, 2007, a Mesa, Ariz., contractor working for Verizon surveyed the McCain property. Another contractor drafted blueprints (see document – note large file size) calling for moving a utility shed and installing a 40-foot tower with two antennas and a microwave dish, surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence.

Construction costs would be $22,000, records show. Industry specialists said the figure probably only covers the tower and fence because the antennas, the dish and power source would run the cost into the six figures. On Dec. 4, Cindy McCain signed a letter (see document) authorizing Verizon Wireless to act on her behalf to seek county land-use permits.

Coverage maps submitted by Verizon to the county show that the tower would fill gaps in unpopulated parts of Coconino National Forest and on about 20 parcels of land, including a handful of residences, and two small businesses open only by appointment.

The Atlantic’s Joshua Green acquired an internal map of the area, from a Verizon engineer’s report, that reveals the company was acutely aware of who owned the property being considered for a permanent tower:

Green also reports that Verizon commissioned an expensive environmental survey of the property, which required an archaeological study to ensure the tower would not be constructed on sacred Indian land.

As Green notes, the McCains may not have specifically requested a favor from the telecom company, but the evidence does seem to suggest that they were prepared to accept a big one.

If so, you’ve probably wondered if there was anything you could do about it. As it turns out, there is — as long as you happen to be married to a powerful senator who sits on the the Senate Commerce Committee.

In June of this year, Verizon Wireless delivered, free of charge, a portable cell phone tower to the 15-acre estate near Sedona, Ariz., owned by Sen. John McCain and his wife, Cindy, according to The Washington Post. In July, AT&T provided another portable tower. One year earlier, Cindy McCain had put in a request on Verizon’s Website to improve cell phone service at her residence.

Over the course of the past year, Cindy McCain had offered land for a permanent cell tower and Verizon embarked on an expensive process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits even though few people other than the McCains would benefit from the tower…

On Sept. 18, 2007, a Mesa, Ariz., contractor working for Verizon surveyed the McCain property. Another contractor drafted blueprints (see document) calling for moving a utility shed and installing a 40-foot tower with two antennas and a microwave dish, surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence.

Construction costs would be $22,000, records show. Industry specialists said the figure probably only covers the tower and fence because the antennas, the dish and power source would run the cost into the six figures.

Why would Verizon and AT&T undertake such expenses on behalf of a very small number of customers? There is at least one possible explanation.

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain’s dealings with the wireless companies stand out because Sen. John McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunications services.

McCain and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including campaign manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staffer Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain’s presidential campaign and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain’s political career, giving more than $155,000 to his campaigns.

McCain’s Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr., and several other campaign staffers have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to McCain campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“It raises the aura of special consideration for somebody because he is a member of the Senate,” said Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats and an ethics attorney who represents politicians of both parties. “Here is a guy who is campaigning as Mr. Maverick and Mr. Reformer and he keeps skirting the edge.”

Some may note that, because McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, his security detail provided by the U.S. Secret Service may require solid coverage to perform its duties. According to the post, the service could have made do with the existing coverage, because it relies on multiple layers of communications, including radio. However, the plans for the permanent tower on the property were well underway by the time the Secret Service contacted Verizon and asked to speed up the process after Memorial Day. The portable towers then arrived promptly.

The Post reports that plans for the permanent tower were killed soon after the newspaper put in a records request, Verizon killed the project, saying “it doesn’t make business sense.”

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign denies McCain’s position or connections to the telecommunications industry’s lobbyists played any role in the extraordinary attention the Arizona senator received.

And maybe they didn’t. But next time you find yourself living somewhere with sub-par cell phone service, just for fun, why not give Verizon or AT&T a call and request your own personal cell-phone tower and see how quickly they spring into action.