|
LOBBYING REPORT |
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page
2. Address
| Address1 | 317 MASSACHUSETTS AVE., NE, SUITE 300C |
Address2 |
|
| City | WASHINGTON |
State | DC |
Zip Code | 20002 |
Country | USA |
3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2)
| City |
|
State |
|
Zip Code |
|
Country |
|
|
5. Senate ID# 293836-12
|
||||||||
|
6. House ID# 373580000
|
||||||||
| TYPE OF REPORT | 8. Year | 2014 |
Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) | Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) | Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) | Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) |
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report
| 10. Check if this is a Termination Report | Termination Date |
|
11. No Lobbying Issue Activity |
| INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12. Lobbying | 13. Organizations | ||||||||
| INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: | EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying related income for the client (including all payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). | 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See instructions for description of options. | ||||||||
|
Method A.
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code |
|||||||||
| Signature | Digitally Signed By: DERRICK B. OWENS |
Date | 10/20/2014 11:26:44 AM |
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code TEC
16. Specific lobbying issues
Universal Service Reform -- WTA continued advocating for a Connect America Fund (CAF) for rate of return local exchange carriers (RLECs). Specifically, the association's advocacy focused on the RLECs' Data Only Broadband (DOBB) proposal which would allow customers in RLEC service territories to purchase broadband only from the RLEC without having to purchase voice telephony service and paying more for such service. WTA also focused on the need to increase the USF budget for RLECs in order to meet the Federal Communications Commission's minimum broadband standards throughout the nation. The association also expressed concern regarding the imposition and implementation of a local voice service rate benchmark for rural customers that is based off of an average local voice service rate in urban areas. WTA also met with policymakers about the FCC's proposed rule to eliminate USF support in areas where there's an "unsubsidized" competitor.
Communications Act Update -- WTA responded to the House Commerce Committee's two white papers regarding Interconnection and Universal Service. In particular, WTA expressed the position that the principles of the Communications Act regarding interconnection (Secs. 251/252) and universal service (Sec. 254) have worked well over the years and should still apply in any Communications Act update or rewrite.
Rural Call Completion -- WTA lobbied in support of S. 2125, the Public Safety and Economic Security Communications Act of 2014 because calls to rural areas continue not to be completed. The legislation would require all voice calls to be terminated regardless of where they originate and would require intermediate carriers (in this instance "least cost routers") to register with the Federal Communications Commission as being actual businesses. The intent is to make sure such entities are legitimate business and are capable of routing calls to their final destinations.
Open Internet Proceeding -- WTA continued to share its position with policymakers that small RLECs need access to high quality affordable broadband networks via Internet Protocol (IP) interconnection and middle mile arrangements. Without such access, it will be extremely expensive and nearly impossible for such small carriers to provide their customers with reasonable access to affordable broadband service. WTA also opposed the FCC's new enhanced transparency and reporting requirements (re: tracking latency, upload speeds, monitoring packet loss and identifying traffic going through the Internet) because their potential informational benefits are outweighed by the costs of doing so and those limited resources could be better spent on deploying more and better broadband throughout rural service territories. RLECs already meet the current requirements and imposing additional requirement without providing additional funding poses even more of a hardship for companies.
Rural Broadband Experiments -- WTA expressed support for the FCC's rural broadband experiments and arranged several meetings for its members to discuss the importance and benefits of these experiments.
E-Rate Reform -- WTA met with policymakers to reiterate its support for modernizing the current e-rate program. WTA maintained its position that consortium bidding processes should not exclude RLECs from participating in the e-rate bidding process. WTA also shared its concerns that the FCC's new "urban" definition excludes many schools and libraries in rural areas from receiving the additional e-rate discount for service.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
| First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Derrick |
Owens |
|
|
|
Eric |
Keber |
|
|
|
Patricia |
Cave |
|
|
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code COM
16. Specific lobbying issues
H.R. 4572, The STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 and S. 2799, The Satellite Television Access and Viewer Rights Act (STAVRA) of 2014 -- WTA lobbied in support of several provisions within these pieces of legislation that would make changes to current video law that currently disadvantage small RLECs and other MVPDs that provide video services to rural customers. The association's focus has been on changes to the current retransmission consent and pricing arrangements, better access for small MVPDs to content, elimination of forced-tying arrangements regarding programming, and allowing DMAs to be redrawn in instances where customers can no longer receive a local television signal.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
| First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Derrick |
Owens |
|
|
|
Eric |
Keber |
|
|
|
Patricia |
Cave |
|
|
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed.
20. Client new address
| Address | |
||||||
| City | |
State | |
Zip Code | |
Country | |
21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20)
| City | |
State | |
Zip Code | |
Country | |
22. New General description of client’s business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
|
|
||||||||
| 1 |
|
3 |
|
||||||
| 2 |
|
4 |
|
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Internet Address:
| Name | Address |
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) |
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities:
| Name | Address |
Principal place of business (city and state or country) |
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities | Ownership percentage in client | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
% | |||||||||||||
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization
| 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | 4 | 6 |