Sponsors (20)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Last progress June 9, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 9, 2025 by Edward John Markey
Replaces the statutory wording that defines "franchise fee" in federal communications law by changing the term "includes" to "means," converting an illustrative list into an exclusive definition. The change narrows what counts as a franchise fee under the Communications Act, which can affect how local governments collect fees, how cable/video providers itemize charges, and how courts and regulators interpret those charges.
Replace the word "includes" with the word "means" in Section 622(g)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (affecting the statutory definition of "franchise fee").
Insert text at a specified location (the excerpt reads: "by inserting before ."). The provided excerpt does not include the actual text to be inserted, so the inserted language is not available in this file.
Protecting Community Television Act
Updated 3 hours ago
Last progress June 6, 2025 (9 months ago)
Primary effects will fall on local franchising authorities (local governments), cable and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), and consumers of cable/video services. By changing "includes" to "means," the statute would likely narrow the set of charges that federal law treats as "franchise fees." Local governments that collect franchise fees could lose the ability to treat certain payments or pass-through charges as franchise fees under federal law, potentially reducing revenue or prompting renegotiation of franchise agreements. MVPDs could reclassify some charges as non-franchise fees, affecting how costs are allocated and billed to subscribers. Consumers may experience changes in bill presentation, and possibly in total billed amounts depending on how parties reallocate charges. Because the change is definitional and small in text, its practical impact depends on judicial and regulatory interpretation and on contractual language in existing franchise agreements. The bill does not, in the provided excerpt, include an effective date or transition rules, which increases short-term legal uncertainty and the likelihood of disputes.