| The only time I wax conservative... ...is here -- I'm tired of greedy 'lil 'burbs holding up progress. Yeah baby. |
|
 jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by Anoni :
...is here -- I'm tired of greedy 'lil 'burbs holding up progress. Yeah baby.
If you truly 'wax conservative' you'd be mad at this decision as another federal government preemption of local authority.
The 10th Amendment was written for a reason. |
|
|
|
| So was the commerce clause and the delivery of data (including a dtv signal) that originates in CA and is piped to Nebraska (or anywhere else) is obviously interstate commerce.
The 10th amendment is inapplicable since the power was already granted to congress.
The cable companies should have thought of this approach years ago. Don't fault the telecoms for pursuing an efficient approach to avoid municipality power-grabs. |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Local control of the local right-of-way is a power grab? |
|
| Once the ROW has been granted (which it has to the telecoms since they are running the data over existing cables) to require some sort of service to the city, e.g., filming the city's arrival of santa clause, is certainly a power grab.
How is this not interference in interstate commerce? |
|
jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17
2 edits | AT&T and Verizon are stringing all sorts of new infrastructure in the ROW.
Where is the precedence for existing infrastructure to give unlimited access for anything new for all time, especially service which is under a different title in the Communication Act?
Who's going to pay the cities to defend themselves from the cable companies who will sue the city violating the Cable Act by not granting a franchise? |
|
| reply to Anoni
said by Anoni :
...is here -- I'm tired of greedy 'lil 'burbs holding up progress. Yeah baby.
Yeah, until they don't deploy in your area.  |
|
