Indefinitely postponed
Adopt the Telecommunications Exchange Deregulation Act ↗
| Sponsor | Sen. Carolyn Bosn (District 25) (Introduced 01/09/2025) |
|---|---|
| Sponsor Ranking | The Nebraska Legislature is officially nonpartisan, and no published ideology measurement of its members is in our database - so none is shown. This page shows how members voted, never where anyone places them. |
| KJV verdict | NEITHER · 0 grounds ↓ |
| Committees | Transportation and Telecommunications |
| Latest Action | 04/17/2026 Indefinitely postponed |
| Roll Call Votes | There have been no roll call votes |
| Source | view on nebraskalegislature.gov (new tab) → |
Brief (4)
If it passes, what changes
This is a telecommunications deregulation bill for landline phone service. It lets certain carriers exit rate and service rules exchange by exchange.
- §2 amends section 86-124, adding a new exception: service-quality rules stay in force unless an exchange is deregulated under this act.
- §3 names §§3-13 the "Telecommunications Exchange Deregulation Act."
- §6 lets an "electing local exchange carrier" petition the PSC to deregulate an exchange; PSC must rule within 90 days.
- §6 requires deregulation if the exchange has 100,000+ people, or fewer people plus two rival voice carriers present.
- §7 frees a "deregulated carrier" from carrier-of-last-resort duty, service-quality reporting, rate rules, earnings reports, and Universal Service Fund payments.
- §9-10 give partial relief to "transitioning carriers" (only some exchanges deregulated); regulated exchanges keep the old pricing rules.
- §12 exempts a carrier discontinuing service in a deregulated exchange from §86-134(1)(a), leaving only §86-134(1)(b).
Does it do what it claims
The title says it gives PSC jurisdiction and adopts the deregulation act; the text does that, but "jurisdiction" here means naming the new act, not expanding PSC power.
- Title claim to "adopt the Telecommunications Exchange Deregulation Act" matches §§3-13, which create and name it.
- The substance of §§6-12 is a removal of PSC authority over deregulated carriers, the opposite direction from what "jurisdiction" suggests standing alone.
- §7(3) states the PSC "shall have only the authority... provided under" this act over deregulated carriers -- a jurisdiction limit, not an expansion.
The case each way
Supporters see market competition replacing obsolete monopoly-era rules; opponents see rural customers losing guaranteed phone service.
- For: §6(2)(a)(ii) requires two competing carriers before smaller exchanges deregulate, meant to ensure competition exists first.
- For: §9(1) lets transitioning carriers shed reporting and pricing rules only in exchanges that meet the competition/population test.
- Against: §7(1)(a) ends carrier-of-last-resort duty, meaning no guaranteed provider for a deregulated exchange's residents.
- Against: §7(2) cuts deregulated carriers off from Universal Service Fund money, which could affect subsidized rural buildout.
What the text cannot settle
The text sets legal categories and procedures but does not say how many exchanges qualify or what happens to customers on the ground.
- No dollar figures, exchange counts, or affected-customer numbers appear anywhere in the bill.
- §6(2)(b) gives the PSC discretion ("may determine") to deregulate at 75% geographic coverage, an unresolved case-by-case call.
- §13 leaves the actual deregulation/reregulation standards to PSC rulemaking, not fixed in this bill.
- The bill does not state what voice service quality or price outcomes follow deregulation for consumers.
Written by claude-sonnet-5 from the Introduced of this bill on 2026-09-13, and from nothing else. It is a reading, not a source: bullets naming a section this bill does not contain are dropped before the page is built, but the prose is not otherwise checked. The verdict above does not come from it.
KJV verdict (0)
NEITHER — The KJV does not speak to this bill
This bill decides whether the Public Service Commission keeps regulating local telephone exchanges once competitors or a large population are present, and what a deregulated carrier must still do. The Bible does not speak to how a state should regulate telephone companies, service-quality reporting, or rate filings. Reaching a verse to cover it would be stretching the standard rather than applying it.
Read against the KJV standard from the Introduced text on 2026-09-13. Every quotation of the bill is checked against the bill's text and every verse is quoted from the 1769 text, not from the model.
Text (1)
- Introduced (new tab) (application/pdf)
Each link opens the legislature's own document.
All Actions (6)
| Date | Actor | All Actions |
|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2026 | Indefinitely postponed | |
| 01/07/2026 | Title printed. Carryover bill | |
| 06/06/2025 | Provisions/portions of LB4 amended into LB311 by AM1111 | |
| 01/31/2025 | Notice of hearing for February 11, 2025 | |
| 01/13/2025 | Referred to Transportation and Telecommunications Committee | |
| 01/09/2025 | Date of introduction |
Votes (0)
There have been no roll call votes on this bill.
Sponsors (1)
- Sen. Carolyn Bosn [District 25] — primary sponsor
Committees (1)
| Committee | Activity | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Telecommunications | Referred | 01/13/2025 |
Amendments (0)
There are no amendments to this bill.
Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)
The legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.
Related Bills (0)
No related bill information was received.
How this was worked out (1)
1. What was read
| version | Introduced |
| file | 01-introduced.pdf |
| sha256 | 9de3b27ea60c3faeafd62ab2ece22c35 |
| characters | 14,787 |
2. What it was read against
| the standard | bills/kjv_prompt.txt, sha256 79671b42553a40fe28a8ac9c8ce9e60a |
| model | claude-fable-5-1 |
| read on | 2026-09-13 |
| the model was shown | the standard -- the verses of the 1769 text, quoted in full -- and the bill's words, and nothing else |
3. The grounds (0)
| none -- the standard does not speak to what this bill does |
4. How the verdict follows
| FAIL grounds | 0 |
| PASS grounds | 0 |
| the rule | any FAIL ground fails the bill -- even one, even beside good provisions (1 Corinthians 5:6), even for a good end (Romans 3:8); PASS grounds alone pass it; no grounds, no verdict. No counting, no weighing, nothing added up. |
| verdict | NEITHER — The KJV does not speak to this bill |
5. What this cannot tell you
Every ground above quotes the bill and quotes the verse, so each can be checked. What the model did not raise cannot be checked the same way: a provision it passed over looks exactly like one that is not there. How often a ground is wrong, and how often one is missing, are not known.
Bill data comes from the Nebraska Legislature's own website, scraped and stored by our own pipeline; titles, sponsors, actions and vote tallies are shown as the Legislature published them. Nothing is generated. Nebraska's Legislature is unicameral and officially nonpartisan; its members carry no party label here because they carry none there. No published ideology measurement is in our database, so no bill or member on this site is placed on a left-right axis: every meter is a roll-call tally, labeled (Vote Record).