At first glance, the such a bill would appear to benefit the ISP more so than the individual user because based on the language you provided it seems like it might be possibly okay to watch the traffic go by (unless there is a provision against that) but it isn’t okay to interact with the traffic.  In order to share frequencies–your equipment has to inherently listen to traffic.  It seems harmful to interact with the radio waves crossing into your property but it isn’t bad to irradiate or interfere with your neighbor’s signals–this almost makes it more than obvious who wrote the bill.  I’m not sure if the bill is designed to protect individual users so much as it is designed to protect the ISP’s investment.  Many of the channels overlap so in an ultra-densely populated area another scenario is that there would be interference from competing signals rather than cooperation.  I sincerely doubt such a bill is needed to protect you from yourself.  Best I can see something like 75%-99% of the access points around me appear locked.  Besides most gear in the future is going to include single button or auto-locking so such a bill seems aimed at a colluding triplet or pair of users more so from saving that lonely unwitting user as the auto-lock features are probably going to render that something of a rare oddity like black and white TV?