Potential licensees will need to turn in an initial survey to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission by 5 p.m. on Oct. 17 that asks for specific company information like ownership interests, management structures, and investors. It’s required ahead of filling out a full sports wagering application, commissioners have said.

Sports betting experts who spoke to MassLive said the survey is a quick-turnaround item that is not new for industry players — when the commission licensed casinos, companies met with regulators face-to-face as part of the scoping process — as it seeks only basic information. The 42 companies that told regulators last month they were interested in taking part in Massachusetts’ sports betting industry ranged from those wanting to open a sportsbook to vendors providing the software necessary to facilitate online wagering.

Foley Hoag’s Kevin Conroy said the surveys will shed a light on how many companies want to pursue one of the seven untethered digital wagering licenses, which will be awarded through a competitive bid process facilitated by the Gaming Commission. The number of companies that make the first step in the application process could affect the tentative timeline regulators approved last week that would see online sports wagering start in early March.

“There could be the same group of companies who indicated an interest before, but I would follow that date and pay attention to which companies because the commission has said pretty much that you have to submit a response to this on the 17th or you’re not going to be considered an eligible applicant,” said Conroy, who closely follows both sports betting and the commission.

The sports betting timeline that the Gaming Commission hashed and voted to approve also plans an in-person wagering launch at casinos in late January. But it took two days of meetings, including one eight-hour hearing, to find consensus after commissioners found themselves arguing over whether the dates were too bold.

Commissioners Eileen O’Brien and Nakisha Skinner repeatedly told Chair Cathy Judd-Stein that the original recommendation from Executive Director Karen Wells to plan a January retail and February online launch was aggressive.

And they maintained that position even as the group signed off on the late January and early March timeline. On Friday, Skinner questioned why only one set of dates had been presented to commissioners.

“I would like to have a timeline presented that is not taxing to staff and that is not centered around sporting events,” she said.

Judd-Stein said the timeline made sense in light of “market realities. “We could have started with March 2024, Commissioner Skinner,” Judd-Stein said. “We could have done that. We started with something that made sense in light of the market realities. Sports betting is centered around September, March Madness.” The state’s sports betting law spells out three different categories of sports betting operators.

The first covers the state’s two casinos and one slot parlor, allowing them to host both in-person betting and online betting. The second category applies to live horse racing tracks and simulcasting facilities — of which they are two in the state, Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park — allowing them to also host in-person and online betting.

The final category allows the Gaming Commission to award up to seven licenses for digital or mobile sports wagering. Regulators have indicated they plan to hold a competitive bid process as many businesses — from DraftKings to esports-centric companies like G3 Esports —have expressed interest.

Conroy said the early March target for online sports wagering is a “pretty aggressive timeline.” It will take time to select the seven digital operators, he said, based on the licensure process casinos went through in 2013.

“This takes some time to review the actual applications, to meet with those who have filed applications, to review those applications, and make decisions upon them,” he said in an interview. “So I do think March is an aggressive timeline for the untethered licenses.”

The timeline, other experts said, also requires a lot of pieces to fall into place quickly. And while some argue the timeline is bold, others say it attempts to balance a speedy launch with ensuring quality future licensees.

Sports betting observers who spoke to MassLive after the two meetings last week said they are also closely watching the evaluation criteria the Gaming Commission decides to use in the competitive bid process for the seven untethered online licenses.

The level of competition that is expected for the seven licenses is not the same as the Gaming Commission dealt with in 2014 when it worked to stand up the casino industry, experts said, making the application scoring process “really fascinating.”

Aside from the timeline, Conroy said it is important that the commission signaled they want casino-backed and independent online wagering to start at the same time, something companies have signaled they support at previous public meetings.

“If a company were to be the only company to go first, they would get a great advantage and consumers would get used to using that platform and it would be hard to get consumers to go to another platform,” he said. “Starting the mobile sports betting on the untethered and the tethered licensees at the same time will ensure that no one gets a first-mover advantage.”