CABLE Competition Act

Bill Number

H.R. 4927

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Science, Technology, Communications

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-08-08: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2025-09-18T19:42:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Consumer Access to Broadband for Local Economies and Competition Act" (CABLE Competition Act) aims to facilitate the transfer and sale of cable systems by limiting the regulatory power of local franchising authorities (typically local governments that grant cable franchises). This is intended to promote competition in the broadband and cable industry, making it easier for operators to adapt to market changes and improve consumer access to services.

Key Provisions

• Fair Market Value for Revoked Franchises: If a local franchising authority revokes a cable operator's franchise and acquires or transfers the cable system, it must do so at fair market value (the price a willing buyer and seller would agree on in an open market).
• Limits on Transfer Approvals:
• Franchising authorities cannot block a cable operator from transferring its franchise rights to any qualified buyer who agrees to abide by all existing franchise terms.
• Authorities can only require written notification from the original operator at least 15 days before the transfer.
• Broad Definition of Transfer: A "transfer" includes any change in ownership or control, such as mergers, sales, assignments, restructurings, or shifts in control of the cable operator or system.
• Effective Date and Scope: The changes take effect 6 months after enactment and apply to:
• New franchises granted on or after that date.
• Existing franchises that are active, renewed, or where the operator continues providing services despite expiration.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill replaces Section 627 of the Communications Act of 1934 (a law governing telecommunications and broadcasting). Previously, local franchising authorities had broader discretion to approve or deny franchise transfers, often requiring detailed reviews. The amendment removes this approval requirement, shifting toward a notification-only process for transfers, while retaining fair market value protections for revocations. This reduces local oversight and streamlines transactions without altering core franchise obligations.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Local franchising authorities (e.g., city or county governments) will have less control over cable system sales, potentially simplifying their administrative workload but limiting their ability to negotiate terms during transfers. This could affect local revenue from franchise fees if transfers lead to changes in service providers.
• On Citizens: Consumers may benefit from increased competition in cable and broadband services, potentially leading to better availability, pricing, or innovation in rural or underserved areas. However, it could reduce local input on who provides these services in their communities.
• On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic cable franchising and does not address cross-border telecommunications.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Cable Operators and Providers: Gain flexibility to sell or merge systems without local government hurdles, enabling faster market entry or exits.
• Local Franchising Authorities: Lose veto power over transfers, which may streamline processes but could diminish their regulatory influence over local infrastructure.
• Consumers and Businesses: Indirectly affected through potential improvements in broadband access and competition, benefiting local economies reliant on reliable internet.
• Investors and Buyers: Easier transfers could attract more investment in the cable sector by reducing regulatory barriers.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bill asserts federal preemption (federal law overriding local rules) over franchise transfers, potentially leading to lawsuits if local authorities challenge it as infringing on their home rule powers (the constitutional principle allowing local governments autonomy in non-federal matters).
• Constitutional: Raises questions about the balance between federal commerce regulation (under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution) and local governance, but it aligns with existing federal oversight of telecommunications to ensure national consistency.
• Political: Supports pro-business deregulation in the telecom sector, likely appealing to industry advocates but facing opposition from local governments concerned about lost control. It could influence broader debates on broadband infrastructure, especially in competitive markets.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

Cosponsors (1)

Rep. Goldman, Craig A. [R-TX-12]

Recent Actions

• 2025-08-08: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-08-08: Introduced in House
• 2025-08-08: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Consumer Access to Broadband for Local Economies and Competition Act — issued 2025-08-08 — PDF (4 pages)