New Act Clarifies Cable Franchise Fees: What 'Means' vs. 'Includes' Could Mean for Community TV Funding

The aptly named Protecting Community Television Act is taking aim at the legal definition of what local governments can charge cable companies. It’s a technical change, but these little tweaks in the law often have the biggest real-world ripple effects, especially when money is involved.

The Grammar of Government Money

Section 2 of the Act focuses on amending the Communications Act of 1934, specifically tightening the definition of a “franchise fee.” Right now, the law uses the word “includes” when listing what counts as a fee a local franchising authority can charge a cable provider. This bill replaces “includes” with the much more restrictive word, “means.” Think of it this way: “Includes” suggests the list is illustrative—there might be other things that count. “Means” suggests the list is exhaustive—only these specific things count.

To further narrow the scope, the bill also inserts the phrase “other monetary” before the word “assessment.” This makes it crystal clear that the fees are strictly about money changing hands. While this might sound like legal hair-splitting, this shift from “includes” to “means” is a big deal in statutory interpretation. It essentially limits the ability of local governments to charge fees to cable companies beyond the explicitly listed items in the federal law.

The Real-World Cost of Clarity

So, why should anyone care about a definitional change in a 90-year-old law? Because these franchise fees are often the lifeline for Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access channels—what most of us know as community television. These are the channels that host local government meetings, provide high school sports coverage, or offer public access programming.

If a city or county used to charge a fee that wasn't explicitly listed in the federal law but was covered under the broader umbrella of “includes,” they might find that fee suddenly illegal under the new, narrower “means” definition. For instance, if a local authority had a specific, non-monetary requirement that was counted as part of the total franchise assessment, the new law could make that requirement harder to enforce or count against the cap. This could restrict the revenue streams local franchising authorities rely on to fund those essential community access services. For the average person, this means potentially less funding for the local studio where your kid’s school board meetings are broadcast or where local aspiring filmmakers get their start.

Who Benefits from the Fine Print?

On the flip side, the cable providers themselves benefit from this increased certainty. By narrowing the definition of what a local government can charge, the bill creates a clearer, more predictable cost structure for providers operating across multiple jurisdictions. This could potentially reduce legal disputes over what counts as a legitimate franchise fee, which is a win for regulatory clarity. However, the potential trade-off is that this clarity might come at the expense of local governments and the community television entities they fund. This bill is a prime example of how even the most technical language in legislation can directly impact local services and community resources.