S.1994 - Protecting Community Television Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The "Protecting Community Television Act" (S.1994) aims to amend the Communications Act of 1934 by modifying the definition of "franchise fee." Specifically, it changes the word "includes" to "means" and inserts "other monetary" before "assessment" in Section 622(g)(1) of the Act. The bill is sponsored by Senator Markey and co-sponsored by several other senators and was introduced in the Senate on June 9, 2025, before being referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The proposed changes appear to narrow the scope of what constitutes a franchise fee. This could have implications for how cable operators are assessed and regulated.
The bill's short title suggests an intent to protect community television, implying that the changes are designed to support local programming and public access channels.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to redefine the term "franchise fee" under the Communications Act of 1934.
This redefinition could alter the financial relationship between cable operators and local franchising authorities. It is likely intended to limit the types of fees that can be assessed, potentially reducing the financial burden on cable operators.
The long-term effects could include changes in the funding available for community television and public access channels, depending on how franchise fees are currently used.
Potential Benefits
- Potential for reduced cable bills: If cable operators pay lower franchise fees, they might pass those savings on to consumers.
- Support for cable operators: The change could provide financial relief to cable companies, especially smaller ones.
- Clarity in fee structure: Redefining the term could lead to more transparent and predictable fee assessments.
- Modernization of regulations: Updating the Communications Act of 1934 could help it better reflect the current media landscape.
- Potential for innovation: Reduced fees could free up resources for cable operators to invest in new technologies and services.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced funding for community television: If franchise fees are a primary source of funding, community television stations could face budget cuts.
- Potential for decreased local programming: Reduced funding could lead to less local content and fewer public access channels.
- Shift in power dynamics: The change could shift the balance of power between cable operators and local franchising authorities.
- Unintended consequences: The redefinition might have unforeseen impacts on the cable industry and related sectors.
- Lack of clarity on alternative funding: The bill doesn't specify how community television would be funded if franchise fees are reduced.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The Communications Act of 1934, which this bill amends, is based on this power. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech could be indirectly relevant, as community television provides a platform for diverse voices. However, the bill itself doesn't directly address speech rights.
There is no obvious conflict with any specific provision of the Constitution.
However, the impact on local community television could raise questions about the government's role in supporting diverse media outlets, although this is more of a policy consideration than a constitutional one.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).