The Association For Competitive Technology, A Trade Organization Representing Information Technology
The Fiber Broadband Association is the largest and only trade association that represents the complete fiber ecosystem of service providers, manufacturers, industry experts, and deployment specialists dedicated to the advancement of fiber broadband deployment and the pursuit of a world where communications are limitless, advancing quality of life and digital equity anywhere and everywhere. The Fiber Broadband Association helps providers, communities, and policy makers make informed decisions about how, where, and why to build better fiber broadband networks. Since 2001, these companies, organizations, and members have worked with communities and consumers in mind to build the critical infrastructure that provides the economic and societal benefits that only fiber can deliver. The Fiber Broadband Association is part of the Fibre Council Global Alliance, which is a platform of six global FTTH Councils in North America, LATAM, Europe, MEA, APAC, and South Africa. Learn more at fiberbroadband.org.
The Association For Competitive Technology, A Trade Organization Representing Information Technology
INCOMPAS, the internet and competitive networks association, is the leading trade group advocating for competition policy across all networks. INCOMPAS represents new network builders who deploy fiber for wired, wireless, satellite and 5G broadband solutions for homes, businesses, schools, libraries and government customers. Together with streaming and internet innovation leaders, INCOMPAS advocates for laws and policies that promote competition, innovation and economic development. Learn more at www.incompas.org or follow us on Twitter: @INCOMPAS @ChipPickering
A good way to find issues in your chosen career is to visit an association or organization website that focuses on your field. There are professional and trade associations for almost every profession and industry. Their purpose is to promote the profession, represent the interests of professional practitioners, and answer any queries from the public.
Barry Cohen focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, unfair competition, business, commercial and contract disputes, trade secret litigation, employment litigation, technology and internet, and IP licensing. He has proudly represented clients across many industries including technology, food and beverage, software, media, retail, footwear and apparel, entertainment, manufacturing and distribution and transportation.
When technology is aligned with business needs and implemented at the right time, there are direct efficiencies that are gained. These efficiencies can be in the form of increased employee output (production, performance, etc.), improved customer communication (response, experience, etc.), and enhanced team collaboration (sharing information, solving problems, etc.), all of which make an organization more agile.
Accounting is a crucial part of the Finance functional area. Accountants provide managers with information needed to make decisions about the allocation of company resources. This area is ultimately responsible for accurately representing the financial transactions of a business to internal and external parties, government agencies, and owners/investors. Financial accountants are primarily responsible for the preparation of financial statements to help entities both inside and outside the organization assess the financial strength of the company. Managerial accountants provide information regarding costs, budgets, asset allocation, and performance appraisal for internal use by management for the purpose of decision-making.
The Duke Bar Association (DBA) coordinates the professional, social, and other extracurricular activities of the student body. The DBA serves as both a student government and a professional bar association. It addresses student grievances and serves as a liaison between students, faculty, and the administration. The DBA oversees all of the law school student organizations, publicizes Law School activities, sponsors athletic and social programs, and disburses its dues funds among the school's organizations. Visit the DBA website for more information.
The Self Storage Association (SSA) is a not-for-profit tax-exempt organization formed in 1975 under Section 501-c-6 of the Internal Revenue Code. For more than 40 years the Association has served as the official trade organization and voice of the U.S. and international self storage industry. The national SSA is formally affiliated with 40 state associations within the United States. In addition to its U.S. relationships, the SSA is affiliated with 9 international organizations representing another 12,000 self storage facilities worldwide. The Association has a staff of 16 professionals headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Massachusetts High Technology Council (MHTC) is an organization of CEOs and senior executives representing technology companies, professional services firms, and academic and research institutions dedicated to creating and sustaining conditions that support investment and job growth in Massachusetts. Our members are growth-oriented, knowledge-intensive employers and institutions that develop, deliver, and depend on technology products, services, and innovations to advance their organizational objectives.
The purpose of this part is to implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.
In this final rule, the Access Board is updating its existing Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ("508 Standards"), as well as our Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines under Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 ("255 Guidelines"). Given the passage of nearly two decades since their issuance, the existing 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines are in need of a "refresh" in several important respects. This final rule is intended to, among other things, address advances in information and communication technology that have occurred since the guidelines and standards were issued in 1998 and 2000 respectively, harmonize with accessibility standards developed by standards organizations worldwide in recent years, and ensure consistency with the Board's regulations that have been promulgated since the late 1990s. The Revised 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines support the access needs of individuals with disabilities, while also taking into account the costs of providing accessible information and communication technology to Federal agencies, as well as manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment.
Hearings were held in January 2012 in Washington, DC and in March 2012 in San Diego, CA. Additionally, 91 written comments were received in response to the 2011 ANPRM. Comments came from industry, Federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade organizations, institutions of higher education and research, accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related organizations, and individual stakeholders who did not identify with any of these groups.
Hearings were held on March 5, 2015 in San Diego, CA, on March 11, 2015 in Washington, DC, and April 29, 2015 in Salt Lake City, UT. Additionally, 137 written comments were received in response to the NPRM. Comments came from industry, Federal and state governments, disability advocacy groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade organizations, institutions of higher education and research, and individuals who did not identify with any of these groups.
Overall, we received about 160 comments in response to the NPRM, including written comments and oral testimony from witnesses at the three public hearings. These commenters represented, when excluding multiple submissions, about 140 different entities or individuals. By general category, these NPRM commenters can be broken down as follows: individuals (59); disability advocacy organizations (59); ICT companies (10); accessible ICT services providers (11); trade associations representing ITC and telecommunications companies (11); individuals or groups identifying themselves as ICT subject matter experts (13); academicians (6); state or local governmental agencies (7); standards development organizations (3); international disability advocacy organizations (9); and, anonymous (4).
In general, commenters spoke positively about the proposed rule, and noted that it was much improved from earlier iterations in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. By a wide margin, the single most commented-upon aspect of the proposed rule (and the issue on which commenters expressed the greatest unanimity) was timing. Characterizing refresh of the 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines as "long overdue," these commenters urged the Access Board to issue its final rule as expeditiously as possible. On substantive matters, a large number of commenters addressed some aspect of the requirements for electronic content, with the bulk of these comments relating to Section 508-covered content. Another technical area receiving sizeable comment was our proposal that, under both Sections 508 and 255, WCAG 2.0 and PDF/UA-1 serve as the referenced technical standards for accessibility of electronic content, hardware, software, and support documentation and services. Additionally, real-time text (RTT) was a subject of great interest to NPRM commenters, with most commenters representing disability advocacy organizations and academicians supporting the Board's RTT proposal, while ITC manufacturers and trade groups expressed opposition. Further, the issue of harmonization with EN 301 549 received considerable comment. In general, ITC industry-related commenters urged the Board to harmonize more closely with this European specification. Disability advocacy organizations and consumer-related commenters, on the other hand, viewed the proposed rule and EN 301 549 as well harmonized already and expressed concern that further harmonization would be improvident because, in their view, EN 301 549 set forth weaker accessibility requirements in some areas.