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.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
cable television providers; video service providers; telecommunications companies offering video services