Is there a good reason why a representative would vote in favor of this?
If you're a telco, you can walk into the office of a politician in Alabama and say: "Hey, we employ 5,000 people in your state. Google employs 100. Why the hell would you support legislation that allows Google to make money this way but bans us from doing it?"
(This is, incidentally, why the conventional wisdom about money ruling politics is bunk. Tech is one of the richest industries that exists. But it's relatively politically ineffectual because it employs so few people, and it does so primarily in a handful of rich, coastal states.
A professor of mine once pointed out to me that in the environmental area, it's the environmental groups that need to do lobbying. The power company can just call up a Congress-critter and remind them of the thousands of jobs in their district that are tied to that company's well-being.)
If I were them:
Look how much money Google and Facebook make doing this. Doesn't make sense to prevent AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from doing the same.
Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions".
While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising".
This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States.
John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
I'm sure you're familiar with the numerous ways corporations (and others) add indirection when donating. Especially in the era of "Super PACs".