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 "Connecting And Building Lines for Expedited Expansion Act" (or "CABLE Expansion Act") amends the Communications Act of 1934. It aims to preserve the authority of franchising authorities over the placement, construction, and modification of covered facilities. However, it limits this authority by preventing regulations that prohibit a cable operator's ability to provide or enhance cable service. It also sets specific deadlines for franchising authorities to approve or deny requests for these facilities.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Expedited expansion is most impactful for those in underserved rural regions.
- Scored +5
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
The bill explicitly aims to enhance the ability to provide and expand cable services.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Cable operators benefit from reduced regulatory hurdles and faster deployment.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
It reduces the autonomy of local authorities to regulate facility placement and timing.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Cable Service: The bill ensures that franchising authority regulations cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of a cable operator to provide or enhance cable service (Section 2, paragraph (2)(A)).
-
Faster Service Deployment: The bill mandates specific timeframes for decisions on facility requests, requiring approval or denial within 90 days for eligible support infrastructure and 150 days for other requests (Section 2, paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I)).
-
Accountability in Decision Making: Any denial of a request must be in writing, supported by substantial evidence in a written record, and released publicly (Section 2, paragraph (2)(B)(i)(IV)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limits on Local Authority: The bill places limitations on the ability of a franchising authority to regulate the placement, construction, or modification of covered facilities if those regulations prohibit the provision or enhancement of cable service (Section 2, paragraph (2)(A)).
-
Strict Deadlines for Local Officials: Franchising authorities must adhere to strict timeframes for decisions and cannot use moratoriums to toll these timeframes (Section 2, paragraph (2)(B)(i)(II) and (III)).
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — Expedited expansion is most impactful for those in underserved rural regions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Cable operators benefit from reduced regulatory hurdles and faster deployment. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural connectivity improvements often benefit farming communities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Potential for enhanced cable and internet service quality. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased service availability may expand access for lower-income areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential for enhanced cable and internet service quality. Would students be better off under this? — Better internet/cable infrastructure supports remote learning. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Faster service enhancements in densely populated areas.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The bill explicitly aims to enhance the ability to provide and expand cable services.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improving telecommunications infrastructure generally supports broader economic activity. Is this likely to create jobs? — Expedited infrastructure deployment may lead to increased construction and installation jobs.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Expedited cable expansion can significantly benefit underserved rural areas.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes federal limitations and deadlines on local franchising authorities. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires denials of requests to be in writing and publicly released. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — It reduces the autonomy of local authorities to regulate facility placement and timing.
- 9/11/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House