SB 108-20: Tinkering With Telecommunications Act (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 08:43:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 108-20: Tinkering With Telecommunications Act (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 108-20: Tinkering With Telecommunications Act (Passed)  (Read 1957 times)
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,806
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« on: April 12, 2022, 04:39:39 PM »

Nice bill from my colleague.

It looks like this bill opens up a lot more EM Spectrum for use in providing cell/internet service while perserving some for amateur radio. It also looks like it restores cell tower siting decisions to the locality where the tower is being built.

It looks like it reforms TV too, by preventing sports blackouts and restrictive contracts relating to retransmission fees and channel favoritism while also requiring al a carte tv packages so you dont have to buy 70 channels you dont want to get ESPN.

It even appears to consolidate duplicitous reports and eliminate duplicitous programs.

What an excellent bill from my colleague to expand internet, protect hobbyists, local governments, and consumers from telecom monopolies, and eliminate waste all while increasing federal revenues through the spectrum auctions. Great job, Muad'dib.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,806
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2022, 11:39:31 PM »

Nay
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,806
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2022, 07:43:13 PM »

Nay.

Out of interest what does the sponsor think of adopting just the changes to section III?

I am not opposed to the spirit of the changes to section III. I think most if not all of those with some tweeks would be fine.

As I said the proposed amendment package as a whole I could not get behind.

Im fine with the bulk of the III amendments as well, although i think 24 months is an unreasonably long time to require locked in rates but maybe say 6 months is reasonable.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,806
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2022, 10:43:16 PM »

Nay
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,806
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2022, 06:05:04 AM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.