PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 12, 2013
Video Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment Act of 2013 or the Video CHOICE Act of 2013 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), if a negotiation for a replacement or extended retransmission consent agreement between a television broadcast station and a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) reaches an impasse resulting in the expiration of the carriage rights of the MVPD, to authorize interim carriage of such station by the MVPD pending the conclusion of a new agreement.
Prohibits a station that elects to grant retransmission consent from entering into an agreement with an MVPD that is conditioned on carriage of any other programming affiliated with such station (or with a person who owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with such station).
Directs the FCC to complete a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether, during retransmission consent negotiations or after the parties to such negotiations reach an impasse resulting in the expiration of an existing agreement, the blocking of online content owned by or affiliated with a television broadcast station constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith under communications laws addressing false, fraudulent, or unauthorized transmissions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Removes from the minimum contents of a basic service tier a requirement for cable system operators to provide to subscribers any signal of any television broadcast station that is provided by the cable operator to any subscriber, thereby enabling subscribers to obtain basic cable television service without receiving broadcast stations that elect to collect fees through retransmission consent agreements.
Requires each cable system operator to offer its subscribers a separately available retransmission consent service tier that consists only of the signal of each television broadcast station electing retransmission consent that is carried on the cable system. Makes such retransmission consent service tier subject to the same rate regulation as the basic service tier.
Prohibits cable operators from requiring a subscription to any tier of service other than the required basic service tier as a condition of access to, or from discriminating between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for: (1) video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis, or (2) the retransmission consent service established under this Act. (Thus, prohibits services or programming from being limited to certain "bundling" arrangements.)
Directs the FCC to submit to Congress an annual report regarding the costs paid by MVPDs for carriage of regional and national television sports networks in the top 20 regional sports markets.
People & committees
Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18] · 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.3719 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.3719 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.3719 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.3719 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.