He really only outlines two negatives of the bill in the video. #1, the 400' altitude limit, is an absolute game changer (game ender?) and I completely agree. But at 1:36 he also contends with the language that those flying in controlled airspace near towered airports must seek authorization or have an agreement with those airports. Is that really a bad thing? Or maybe they're hyping this as a negative so if it comes down to it, we can "compromise" by giving in on that as long as the 400' limit is removed. I'm good with that plan.