Bill quietly narrows what cities can charge cable companies
S. 1994 — Protecting Community Television Act · Filed by Ed Markey (D-MA) · 19 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 9, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill narrows the legal definition of 'franchise fee' under federal communications law by changing 'includes' to 'means' and adding 'other monetary' before 'assessment.' The effect is to restrict what local governments can charge cable and video providers as franchise fees, potentially reducing municipal revenue from these operators.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a definitional narrowing that restricts municipal authority to impose franchise fees on cable and video providers. While framed as 'protecting community television,' the actual effect is to reduce the scope of fees local governments can charge these operators, benefiting the cable/video industry at the expense of municipal revenue.
What the text implies
- Changing 'includes' to 'means' converts a non-exhaustive definition into an exhaustive one, potentially invalidating fees municipalities currently collect that fall outside the narrowed definition.
- The addition of 'other monetary' before 'assessment' may exclude non-monetary assessments (in-kind contributions, public access channel requirements, or service obligations) that municipalities currently negotiate as part of franchise agreements.
- Municipal public access television funding, which often depends on franchise fee revenue, may be jeopardized if local governments lose revenue authority.
- The bill's title ('Protecting Community Television') may mislead readers into believing it protects public/community broadcasting, when the operative effect reduces municipal leverage over commercial cable operators.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens may benefit from lower cable/video service costs if providers pass savings through, but municipalities lose revenue that funds local infrastructure, public access channels, and community services — shifting costs from private operators to taxpayers or reducing public services. The net effect depends on whether savings reach consumers or remain as operator profit.
Who stands to gain
- cable television providers
- video service providers
- telecommunications companies offering video services
Named in the bill
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 622(g)(1), cable television providers, video service providers, local governments, municipalities
Where it stands
19 cosponsors: 17 Democrats, 2 Independents.
- Jun 9, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jun 9, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (290 characters) on Aug 16, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Bill quietly narrows what cities can charge cable companies” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s1994 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.