New 'Community Television Act' Changes Two Words in Cable Law, Potentially Hitting Local Government Budgets

The “Protecting Community Television Act” might sound like it’s about making sure your local public access channel stays on the air, but the action in this bill is all about grammar and money. Specifically, it tweaks the definition of a “franchise fee” under the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 622(g)(1)), which is the fee local governments charge cable companies to operate in their area. This seemingly small change could have big implications for how cities and counties fund things like public access TV, emergency communications, and even general revenue.

The $10 Word Swap: 'Includes' to 'Means'

Right now, the law defining a franchise fee uses the word "includes," which is legally flexible. It signals that the listed charges are examples, but not necessarily the only things that count as a franchise fee. This bill changes that critical word to "means." In legal terms, changing "includes" to "means" usually narrows the scope. If the fee means only the listed payments, it might exclude other charges that local governments currently collect from cable operators.

Think of it like this: If your job description says your duties "include" answering the phone and filing, you might also be asked to handle the mail. If it changes to your duties "mean" answering the phone and filing, your boss can’t easily ask you to handle the mail anymore. For local governments, this shift could restrict their ability to collect certain fees from cable companies, potentially cutting into revenue streams that fund community services or local infrastructure projects. The vagueness here means we could see cities and cable companies fighting this out in court over what charges are now excluded.

The Ambiguous Addition: 'Other Monetary Assessment'

The bill also slips in the phrase “other monetary assessment” into the definition. This is the second half of the technical change, and it adds another layer of complexity. An “assessment” is basically a required charge or payment. By explicitly including “other monetary assessment” in the definition, the bill could be trying to clarify that any required payment from a cable operator to a local government must be counted as part of the franchise fee, even if it’s not explicitly labeled as such.

On one hand, this could be a win for cable companies seeking clarity, as it forces local governments to be upfront about all charges. On the other hand, the term “other monetary assessment” is pretty broad. If a city asks a cable company to pay for, say, the cost of inspecting their buried cables, would that now count as a franchise fee? Depending on how this term is interpreted, it could either help cap the total fees charged to cable companies or, conversely, create new disputes over what payments fall under this umbrella. Ultimately, this technical language is about who pays for what, and the resulting ambiguity means that the lawyers are going to be busy trying to figure out what this means for local budgets and your cable bill.