Protecting Community Television Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3805
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Science, Technology, Communications
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-06: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-09T08:06:23Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Protecting Community Television Act (H.R. 3805) aims to narrow the definition of a "franchise fee" under federal telecommunications law. This change is intended to limit what local governments can charge cable operators for using public rights-of-way, potentially reducing costs for cable providers and protecting community television services.
Key Provisions
- Short Title: The bill is officially named the "Protecting Community Television Act."
- Amendment to Definition: It modifies Section 622(g)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 542(g)(1)), which defines a "franchise fee" – a payment that cable companies make to local governments for permission to operate in their areas.
- Replaces the word "includes" with "means," making the definition exhaustive (i.e., it lists exactly what counts as a franchise fee, rather than allowing broader interpretations).
- Adds the phrase "other monetary" before "assessment," clarifying that only direct money payments qualify as franchise fees, excluding non-monetary items.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under current law, "franchise fee" uses "includes," which allows courts and regulators to interpret it more broadly, potentially encompassing indirect costs or in-kind contributions (like free cable services for schools).
- This bill tightens the definition to focus solely on explicit monetary charges, preventing local governments from classifying certain fees or requirements as franchise fees. This could cap franchise fees at 5% of a cable operator's gross revenues, as per existing limits in the Communications Act.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Local governments (e.g., cities and counties) may see reduced revenue from cable franchise agreements, as they can no longer include non-cash items in fee calculations. This could strain budgets for public services funded by these fees.
- On Citizens: Consumers might benefit from potentially lower cable bills if operators pass on savings from reduced fees. However, communities relying on cable-funded public access channels (like local TV programming) could face cuts if operators reduce support.
- On International Relations: No direct impact, as this is a domestic telecommunications issue.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Cable Operators and Broadband Providers: Benefit from clearer, narrower rules that limit mandatory payments, potentially lowering operational costs.
- Local Governments and Municipalities: Adversely affected, as they lose flexibility in negotiating franchise agreements and may collect less money for infrastructure or public services.
- Community Television Users: Local residents, schools, and nonprofits that use public access channels could experience reduced programming or funding if operators scale back contributions.
- Federal Regulators: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would enforce the updated definition, possibly leading to fewer disputes over fee calculations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The shift from "includes" to "means" could reduce litigation over ambiguous franchise fees by providing a stricter statutory definition, aligning with federal preemption of local cable regulations.
- Constitutional: No direct challenges, but it reinforces federal authority over interstate communications under the Commerce Clause, potentially limiting local governments' taxing powers without infringing on free speech or property rights.
- Political: The bill, introduced by Rep. Carter of Louisiana, reflects industry advocacy for deregulation to promote broadband expansion, but it may draw opposition from local officials concerned about revenue loss. If passed, it could influence ongoing debates on telecommunications infrastructure funding.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15], Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-06: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2025-06-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Protecting Community Television Act — issued 2025-06-06 — PDF (2 pages)