|
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 | 7/21/2014 3:03:29 PM |
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 meeting with policymakers to discuss the effects of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) 2011 USF-ICC Transformation Order. Specifically, we discussed concerns with the increased obligations for companies to provide more broadband but within the FCC's limited "targeted" budget; concerns regarding the imposition of a local voice service rate benchmark which is based off of an average of voice rate service in urban areas; the need for a Connect America Fund (CAF) for rate of return (ROR) carriers that is broadband-focused and that allows carriers to obtain USF support for their customers that only want the carrier's broadband service and not voice service; and support for the targeted reinstallation of safety net additive support (SNA) for a limited number of companies.
IP-Transition -- WTA continued to share information with policymakers about how ROR carriers continue to implement IP technologies into their underlying network infrastructure.
E-Rate Modernization -- WTA continued to express its support for modernizing the E-Rate program. It expressed concerns regarding consortiums having sole authority over which entities participate in the process of determining how schools and libraries receive broadband connections using e-rate funds. WTA members shared stories of being excluded from the participating in the bidding process and how that actually affected pricing of services for schools.
Call Completion -- WTA continued advocating that calls to rural areas be completed as the problem has not been eliminated. We lobbied in support of S. 2125, the Public Safety and Economic Security Communications Act of 2014, which would require all voice calls to be terminated regardless of whether they were destined for urban or rural areas. WTA also lobbied in support of two Sense of Congress Resolutions in the House and Senate calling on calls to be terminated in rural areas.
Net Neutrality -- WTA shared its views on this matter with policymakers. In particular, WTA expressed the need and desire to be able to effectively manage its network so that all of its customers have a quality broadband experience, but also expressed the need to be able to gain access to content and to do so at reasonable costs.
Rural Broadband Experiments -- WTA lobbied in support of the FCC's rural broadband experiments. We shared insight on how these experiments may help to extend broadband service in high-cost rural areas where it is either below the current minimum speeds or non-existent at this time.
Municipal/Public Broadband -- WTA met with policymakers to share its concerns regarding the municipal broadband systems.
Communications Act Update -- WTA responded to the House Commerce Committee's CommAct Update paper regarding the nation's competition policy and the role of the FCC. The association spent time talking with congressional staffers about its position.
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 |
|
|
|
Noah |
Cherry |
|
|
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. 3719, Video Choice Act of 2013; H.R. 3720, Next Generation Television Marketplace Act; Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization -- WTA continued advocating for policies within these pieces of legislation that would provide some relief for rural local exchange carriers (RLECs) that are offering video programming to their customers. The association's advocacy has focused on retransmission consent agreements and changes that need to be made to ensure RLECs are receiving comparable retrans pricing agreements to larger carriers, better access to content; elimination of forced-tying arrangements regarding programming; and allowing for DMA's to be redrawn to more accurately reflect the programming desires of the communities in the area.
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 |
|
|
|
Noah |
Cherry |
|
|
|
Eric |
Keber |
|
|
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 |