Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Why don't more proprietary software vendors use a common license? The proprietary EULAs mostly say the same things -- couldn't the BSA or somebody issue a standard one?
- Twitter as we know it was built for about $15-20 million. Google lasted almost a year on $100,000 before taking over the world with $25 million of investor money. This is highway robbery, you could...
- I think the news people are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" bind over Google's indexing and summarizing of their work. Allowing it to be indexed gets them a little...
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
- Exactly.
2 years ago
Since 2005, eight states have enacted statewide cable franchising legislation and Michigan looks to be the ninth, once HB6456 is signed by the Governor. You also have Oklahoma and Connecticut that have weighed in on the issue by their Attorney General and state PUC, respectively.
In addition, at least ten to twenty states will consider similar legislation during their 2007 sessions. Due to this high level of cable reform taking place in the states, the need to address it at the federal level should clearly abate.
Congress and the FCC's efforts to federally standardize timeframes, terms, applications, and procedures are unnecessary and erroneously apply a cookie cutter approach to specific state needs. While the recent FCC order doesn't look to preempt state law, my concern lies with is this a one time order or is it an incremental step toward needlessly increasing the federal government's role and erasing the hard work of countless state legislators who share the same vision and goals of their federal counterparts?
2 years ago
http://poliblog.verizon.com/poliblog/blogs/poli...