[3finmunchousen]

I guessing that the more limited scope gives it the air of credibility. If it is restricted to just phones and tablets with data plans then there is the perception that it is now the responsibility of the big three carriers to figure out. The average voter would easily assume that they have plenty of money and the infrastructure to know who is in state. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone not on the payroll to come to the carriers' defense. Meanwhile UT retail sales of the hardware can carry on while the carriers pay for software at time of activation.

Another bonus is if a content filtering a company were based in UT. There is a requirement in the bill that 5 other states join in before it goes into effect. Once it did you would have basically legislated that three, large, hated, national companies have to spend money at least partially collected elsewhere in your state.

What do you know! One such company is indeed headquartered in SLC. Probably just a coincidence!

https://sec-report.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/sec.report/CIK/000...