Marco Rubio drinks AT&T’s Kool Aid while also spending their money.

Eight Republican senators, including presidential candidate Marco Rubio, are so upset about communities building their own broadband networks, they’ve signed a letter demanding the Federal Communications Commission stop making life easier for the would-be competitors.

Rubio joined Sens. Deb Fischer, Ron Johnson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso, Michael Enzi, and Tim Scott in protesting the Commission’s interference in “overriding [Tennessee and North Carolina’s] sovereign authority to regulate their own municipalities.”

The senators are concerned about an FCC decision to override state laws in the two states that make it nearly impossible to launch a public broadband network. The laws were widely criticized as being written and lobbied for by incumbent telecom operators that wanted to avoid competition.

The eight adopted the phrase “government-owned networks,” popular with telecom-funded critics of community broadband, to describe local broadband networks owned and operated in the public interest, mostly offering service in areas bypassed or underserved by incumbent phone and cable companies.

The letter complains “agency officials have begun engaging in outreach to persuade communities to deploy municipal broadband networks.”

The senators were particularly upset about remarks from one agency official who stated, “Where you’ve got a community infrastructure or a rural electric company, a rural electric co-op, states shouldn’t be telling local communities what they can and cannot do.”

The eight believe private broadband providers should be given due deference over other competitors but also demanded the FCC stop “choosing winners and losers in the competitive broadband marketplace.”

EPB’s biggest problem is that they are not AT&T. The fiber to the home municipal utility outperforms both Comcast and AT&T and charges dramatically lower pricing for high speed service.

“Typical hypocrisy from those in the back pocket of AT&T,” responds Tim Weller, an advocate for expanding EPB’s municipal fiber network to other communities adjacent to Chattanooga, Tenn. “By telling the FCC to stop allowing cheaper, more reliable, and faster service from municipal utilities like EPB, they have no issue picking AT&T and Comcast as winners. Rubio couldn’t be closer to AT&T if he located his campaign headquarters in their corporate office in Dallas.”

Few candidates have closer ties to corporate telecom interests than Marco Rubio. AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, who works as the public policy co-chair of high-powered DC law firm Wiley Rein, is a close Rubio associate. Weaver, also assisting in litigation against the FCC to curb municipal broadband, is one of three lobbyist money-bundlers working on behalf of the Rubio campaign. He has raised at least $33,000 so far for the Florida senator.

Rubio has lived off AT&T’s generosity since his days in the Florida legislature, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, including $22,000 in personal expenses, on a state Republican Party American Express card that was paid each month with funds donated by AT&T and other special interests.

The International Business Times reported Rubio’s long history courting companies like AT&T to give heavily to murky Republican-controlled fundraising groups that bypassed Florida’s ban on gifts from lobbyists.

In 2003, as a member of the Florida state House, Rubio created a special fundraising committee, called Floridians for Conservative Leadership, that could accept unlimited contributions. In the span of a year, the committee raised $228,000, with large donations from lobbyists, telecom giant AT&T, health plan manager WellCare and the state’s sugar conglomerates, Florida Crystals and U.S. Sugar. Not all of the contributors were disclosed, and some are listed simply as gold or silver memberships.

By mid-2004, the group had spent $193,000. More than a third of the committee’s money was spent on meals and travel. Some of those expenditures were made as reimbursements to Rubio and his wife, Jeanette. Other payments appear to be multiple items lumped together as single expenditures — an uncommon arrangement — like a $3,476 expense listed under “Citibank Mastercard” that includes hotel, airfare, meals and gas. Another $71,000 was spent on staff and consultants.

While Rubio was in the legislature in the February 2004, he created a federal 527 organization with a similar name, called Floridians for Conservative Leadership in Government. Rubio was listed as the group’s president, with his wife as vice president. The committee raised $386,000 by the end of 2004, with donations from Hewlett-Packard, Dosal Tobacco Corporation and private prison company GEO Group, according to filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

The federal group spent $316,000 by the end of 2005. The bulk of its spending was on consulting, but the committee also paid Rubio’s relatives roughly $14,000 for items wrongly described as “courier fees,” the Tampa Bay Times reported.

As Marco’s money controversies emerged, some members of his staff decided to move to the private sector, including Rubio’s former chief of staff, Cesar Conda, who now works as a professional lobbyist for AT&T. As a U.S. senator, Rubio continues to cash AT&T’s campaign contribution checks.

“This letter is nothing more than naked corporate protectionism from senators that get donations from the same telecom companies that are threatened by a challenge to their monopolies,” Weller added.

The senators also demanded Wheeler answer questions about how much money the FCC has given to municipal providers, whether the presence of municipal providers would lead to cuts in funding for private phone companies from the Universal Service Fund/Connect America Fund, and what exactly the FCC plans to advocate or regulate with respect to public broadband in 2016.

An AT&T Logo is pictured on the side of a building in Pasadena, California, January 26, 2015. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

Editor’s Note: Stop the Cap! learned in May from a well-placed source that the FCC would “get serious” about data caps if Comcast moved to further expand them in its service areas across the country. It appears that day has arrived although it is too early to tell what direction the FCC will move in. Comcast’s data cap program has grown the most controversial, triggering at least 13,000 consumer complaints from what the company continues to claim is only a limited “trial.” But wireless providers’ growing interest in exempting certain data from counting against a customer’s allowance — a practice known as “zero rating” — has also attracted interest because of its potential impact on Net Neutrality policies.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Communications Commission said on Thursday it has asked major Internet providers to discuss innovative data policies in the wake of the government’s Net Neutrality rules.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler told reporters Thursday that commission staff sent letters on Wednesday to AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile “to come in and have a discussion with us about some of the innovative things that they are doing.”

Wheeler said the letters are focused on data policies.

T Mobile has introduced a new “Binge On” policy that does not count some digital video services against data limits.

Comcast is rolling out its own live streaming TV service called “Stream TV” that would not count usage against data caps if using Comcast services.

AT&T has had “sponsored data plan” programs that allow content providers to subsidize users wireless data.

Wheeler said the commission wants to welcome innovation in its open Internet order. He said the commission wants to “keep aware” of what is going on.

On Dec. 4, a U.S. appeals court heard arguments on Friday over the legality of the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules, in a case that may ultimately determine how consumers get access to content on the Internet.

The fight is the latest battle over Obama administration rules requiring broadband providers to treat all data equally, rather than giving or selling access to a so-called Web “fast lane.”

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

In the darkness of night, Congress on Tuesday handed some of America’s largest telecom companies a huge tax windfall allowing many to continue taking a special 50% depreciation bonus that slashes their tax bills on new equipment purchases, winning substantial reductions in their federal tax bills.

CenturyLink had been heavily lobbying House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other House leaders to extend a “temporary tax provision” that was designed to stimulate corporate spending on capital investments during the height of the Great Recession. Stimulus programs like these have allowed corporations like AT&T and Verizon to pay virtually no federal taxes at all for multiple years in a row. AT&T was the second biggest tax provision/corporate welfare recipient in the country, Verizon was fifth according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Between 2008-2012 taxpayers effectively covered the $19.2 billion in federal tax not paid by AT&T and $11.1 billion not paid by Verizon.

The two words that make it possible are: Accelerated Depreciation

Telecom companies, particularly those with wireless assets, are benefiting from the “temporary” stimulus program introduced by President George W. Bush in the last year of his second term because most are capital-intensive, spending regularly to expand, maintain, and upgrade their networks. CenturyLink has taken advantage of accelerated depreciation to invest billions in fiber network expansions to reach cell towers and businesses and on residential broadband speed upgrades the company claims would not have come so quickly without the tax savings.

Mobile companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless are some of the largest beneficiaries of the stimulus program, using accelerated depreciation to write off expenses for cell tower expansion, network densificiation, and deployment of services like 4G LTE. In most cases, “accelerated depreciation” is technically a tax deferral, but because these companies maintain constant investment in network development and upkeep, the tax man never actually arrives at the door to collect.

Heavy lobbying from beneficiaries not only succeeded in getting the program’s expiration date extended, the Obama Administration agreed to expand it at the end of 2013. Companies slashed tens of billions off their tax bills as a result. A report from the Congressional Research Service, reviewing efforts to quantify the impact of depreciation breaks, found that “the studies concluded that accelerated depreciation in general is a relatively ineffective tool for stimulating the economy.”

Citizens for Tax Justice added:

Combined with rules allowing corporations to deduct interest expenses, accelerated depreciation can result in very low, or even negative, tax rates on profits from particular investments. A corporation can borrow money to purchase equipment or a building, deduct the interest expenses on the debt and quickly deduct the cost of the equipment or building thanks to accelerated depreciation. The total deductions can then make the investments more profitable after-tax than before-tax.

The latest budget bill, passed Dec 15-16, extends the tax breaks until 2018 when the bonus drops to 40%, 30% in 2019, and zero in 2020.

Despite cost savings expected to run into the billions from the combination of AT&T U-verse and satellite TV provider DirecTV, AT&T isn’t sharing any of their savings with you and has announced a nationwide rate hike for early 2016.

For the latest round of price increases, AT&T is focusing on its U-verse TV and telephone services, blaming “increased programming costs” and “service delivery expenses.”

All customers not on a promotional rate contract will be affected, starting with billing statements issued after Jan. 28, 2016.

• AT&T’s Voice 1000 plan is increasing to $30 a month and the Voice 250 plan will rise by $2, to $27 per month;
• U-family and U-family All-In tiers increase $2 a month;
• U100, U200, U200 All-In, U200 Latino and U200 Latino All-In up $3 a month;
• U300, U300 All-In, U300 Latino, U300 Latino All-In, U400, U450, U450 All-In, U450 Latino and U450 Latino All-In rise $4 a month;
• Non DVR-TV receivers increase $1 per month;
• Regulatory Video Cost Recovery Surcharge: up 1¢ per month;
• Broadcast TV Surcharge: increasing $1 per month (except 46¢ in Detroit, Biloxi, Miss., and Wilmington, N.C.)

AT&T claims its services remain a good value at the higher price because the company’s TV Everywhere service now allows mobile/tablet customers access to more than 270 live channels while inside the home and more than 205 channels when on the go.

Customers appear not to be impressed. AT&T admitted 92,000 U-verse customers left AT&T for good during the last quarter and analysts expect further customer losses during this quarter as AT&T refocuses its value conscious customers on cheap and easy to install DirecTV instead of U-verse, which can be costly to get up and running.

CEO Randall Stephenson also warned customers should expect a harder line on pricing due to the company’s ‘new focus on profitability.’ AT&T has cut back on promotional pricing and is especially reluctant to extend deals to customers with a “propensity to churn.” That means AT&T does not want to extend lower pricing to customers threatening to leave who are unwilling to pay the regular price after their deal ends. The company noted price sensitive customers often bounce back and forth between providers just to secure new customer pricing.

When a CEO tells customers they should just get used to data caps and stop being paranoid about them, it would not a stretch to assume the top executive of the nation’s largest cable company has no interest in hearing the views of his customers on the matter and has stopped listening.

But just how many took complaints about usage-billing above the head of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts to the Federal Communications Commission has been a mystery, until today.

A website that promotes cord cutting filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC that now reveals at least 13,000 (and counting) Comcast customers took time to file formal complaints with the federal regulator about what CutCableToday calls Comcast’s unethical practice of imposing data caps.

A review of the complaints shows the FCC was generous in its response, including a significant minority of complaints that had nothing to do with data caps. But among the majority that did consider data caps to be unjust, it was common to see Comcast described as an “extortionist,” a “monopoly,” and “abusive” to customers.

Roberts

“Comcast should be performing damage control, but the corporation considers itself too powerful for that,” says David Mumpower of CutCableToday. “They wouldn’t ‘win’ so many competitions as the Most Hated Company in America if they cared what customers thought. The power brokers of the cable industry believe that they can charge whatever they want for Internet access because people can’t function effectively in society without it.”

Last week, Roberts claimed only 5% (8% and rising Comcast later admitted) of Comcast customers exceed what is usually a 300GB usage allowance before paying an overlimit fee of $10 for each additional allotment of 50GB. But CutCableToday’s efforts easily turned up several bill shock horror stories from customers stuck with hefty bills after Comcast unilaterally implemented data caps as part of a seemingly-endless “trial” that has spread to a growing number of its service areas.

One Nashville customer got the shock of his life when he discovered he owed a total of $400 in overlimit fees, the same amount he typically pays for six months of Internet service from Comcast.

“Comcast just surprised me with a bill that shows that I owed $180 for over cap surcharges,” the customer wrote in his complaint. “I called the same day I got the bill, and they also let me know that I owe another $220 for over cap surcharges. (That’s right, a surprise $400).”

Despite Comcast’s claims that practically nobody would be affected by their data cap, more than ten thousand went the extra mile, learned how to file a complaint with the FCC, and followed through, further eroding Comcast’s already poor reputation.

A customer in Plantation, Fla., which became subject to Comcast’s data capping this fall, called it like he saw it:

“I object to this new policy of forcing customers to pay more for exceeding pre-established data caps by this greedy corporation. The caps will be exceeded even by moderate users of the Internet due to forced video ads on pretty much every single web page that one loads into a browser. This is not right. These cable companies are already charging us too much for Internet service. Now Comcast wants to charge us a $30 av month fee to prevent them from charging us even more fees. This is a rip off. The government needs to do something to stop this practice of capping. If they are going to meter our internet usage like an electric power company then we should be charged only for data that we call up. This means a ban on all forced Internet advertising. PLEASE do something. We have no one to protect us!”

The volume of complaints has been so great, CutCableToday notified the FCC it would consider its FOIA request adequately fulfilled after nearly 2,000 complaints were initially made available in response. The group put those 1,929 complaints together into four huge PDF files you can download and review yourself:

• Comcast Data Cap Complaints Part 1
• Comcast Data Cap Complaints Part 2
• Comcast Data Cap Complaints Part 3
• Comcast Data Cap Complaints Part 4

Despite the volume of complaints, Roberts has continued to reassure investors that customers are “neutral to slightly positive” about Comcast’s data caps, a claim that might run afoul of Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring frank admissions about company practices that could affect shareholders’ investments in company stock.

Roberts’ claims could lack credibility as the company has offered no verifiable evidence that customers are even slightly positive about having their Internet usage put on an allowance.

Based on the FCC’s bulging file of complaints, it is more likely most customers either don’t know or understand Comcast’s data caps and as one Knoxville customer who did know described it: It is more of “their f***-you level of customer service.”

“The data caps that Comcast is putting into place are going to end up making people choose between enriching their lives and learning more, and paying more money to a local monopoly,” the customer added.

“This corporate arrogance – some would say malfeasance – has driven many broadband users to the breaking point,” writes Mumpower. “At best, the choices for Internet service are oligopoly sized; at worst, a monopoly exists. How can customers expect their viable complaints to be taken seriously if they have no leverage? That’s why it’s imperative that you file a complaint to make your voice heard.”