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?

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?

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?