The implication of the bill I'm most concerned about, if the [i]Wired[/i] article is accurate, is the bill's alleged derailing of "fair use." Fair use is an extremely important principle and needs to be protected.

Oops, the link expired. The relevant part is section 212.

Jimmy,
I read the actual text of the bill and ISTM the language about skipping ads is rather vague, it's enclosed in a clause *allowing* the skipping of objectionable content (e.g. sex scenes). I agree that it could be interpreted to make skipping commercials illegal, so I am concerned.
Text of relevant section
As a federal employee I can't call my Congresscritters during working hours. However, I just now, before I head off to work, called and left messages on both of my senators' voicemail. I encourage others with concerns about this bill to do the same.

Can't give a full write-up now, but here's one reason: It would ban ad-blocking technologies and *force* us to endure more advertising. That alone is reason enough to oppose it (though there are other reasons as well).

Umm.... why, Jimmy?
Copyright protection makes sense to me...