A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Cable Transparency Act amends the Communications Act of 1934 regarding cable franchises. It allows cable operators to request the elimination or modification of franchise requirements based on specific causes, such as technology changes or commercial impracticability. The bill establishes that franchises continue indefinitely without needing renewal until they are revoked or terminated. It sets specific rules for how franchises can be terminated by either the operator or the franchising authority. Additionally, it provides pathways for judicial or Commission review of revocation decisions.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Cable operators (business owners) gain significant flexibility in modifying requirements and security of tenure.
- Scored +5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Large cable conglomerates benefit from reduced local oversight and permanent franchise status.
- Scored +3
Does this invest in rural communities?
Updating technology requirements can help expand and modernize cable infrastructure in rural areas.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill significantly limits the power of local franchising authorities to revoke franchises or maintain specific requirements.
- Scored -4
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill reduces the ability of local governments to impose and maintain requirements on cable technology providers.
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill allows for the elimination of franchise requirements, potentially reducing the obligations cable providers have toward the public.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Maintaining Service Quality: Under Section 625(b)(1)(B), any request to eliminate or modify a franchise requirement must demonstrate that the mix, quality, and level of cable services will be maintained, which ensures users do not lose service quality when rules change.
-
Updating for New Technology: Section 625(b)(1)(A)(ii) allows for the modification of requirements to address changes in technology, which could allow services to evolve and modernize.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Easier Removal of Requirements: Section 625(b)(1) allows cable operators to eliminate or modify franchise requirements if they show good cause or commercial impracticability, which could lead to the removal of previously agreed-upon obligations.
-
Automatic Elimination of Requirements: Section 625(c) states that if a franchising authority fails to act on a complete request within the required timeframe, the requirement is "deemed eliminated or modified," potentially removing requirements without an official review.
-
Limited Revocation Power: Section 626(b)(1) generally prohibits the revocation of a franchise by an authority or its termination by law, limiting the ability of local authorities to end a franchise agreement except under the specific conditions listed in subsection (b)(2).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Cable operators (business owners) gain significant flexibility in modifying requirements and security of tenure. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Large cable conglomerates benefit from reduced local oversight and permanent franchise status. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Potential for improved service quality via technology updates in rural cable networks. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Removal of franchise requirements could potentially eliminate public access or low-cost service obligations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Updating technology requirements can help expand and modernize cable infrastructure in rural areas.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Allowing modifications for technology changes may facilitate the rollout of faster, more modern cable internet services. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill reduces the ability of local governments to impose and maintain requirements on cable technology providers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill provides federal judicial and Commission review of local franchise revocation decisions. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill significantly limits the power of local franchising authorities to revoke franchises or maintain specific requirements.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing regulatory burdens on cable operators may encourage infrastructure investment and modernization. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill allows for the elimination of franchise requirements, potentially reducing the obligations cable providers have toward the public.
- 9/10/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House