PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2017
Local and Independent Television Protection Act of 2017
This bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to amend the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule to eliminate the UHF discount by increasing from 50% to 100% the number of attributed television households in an ultrahigh frequency (UHF) television station's designated market area. (The number of attributed television households in a UHF television station's designated area is used to calculate the total number of television households an entity with a cognizable interest in more than one television station reaches nationally. A broadcast license cannot be granted or transferred if such license would result in the total number of television households reached nationally by an entity exceeds 39%.)
This change in the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule does not apply to an entity that had a national television audience exceeding 39% prior to September 26, 2013, if such an entity exceeds the limit only because of the increased number of television households attributed to the entity's UHF television stations.
People & committees
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3478 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3478 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3478 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3478 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.