PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 1998
Video Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 1998 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to make the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate cable television service rates inapplicable to services provided after March 31, 1999, by a cable system unless the franchising authority for such system, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing, certifies to the FCC that the cable operator of such system is not providing subscribers an acceptable range of programming choices to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable. Outlines factors to be considered for such certification. Authorizes FCC review of such certifications. Makes such certifications effective for one year, unless earlier withdrawn or rescinded. Replaces references to "satellite cable programming" and "satellite broadcast programming" with "multichannel video programming (MVP)." Repeals a deadline for FCC regulations concerning the development of competition and diversity in MVP distribution. Outlines minimum requirements for such regulations, including prohibited actions by an MVP vendor with respect to the sale or delivery of such programming among cable systems, cable operators, and other MVP distributors. Prohibits entering into contracts to grant exclusive distribution rights to any person with respect to MVP after the date of enactment of this Act, except for certain exclusivity contracts granted by the FCC in the public interest. Prohibits any such contract (other than the public interest contract) already entered into before such date of enactment to continue after 120 days after such date. Defines MVP as video programming which is transmitted by any means and which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by MVP distributors for retransmission to their subscribers. Requires the revision of MVP regulations as necessitated by this Act within 120 days after enactment. Requires each cable operator of a cable system to make available for sale to its subscribers a separately packaged lifeline service tier consisting exclusively of: (1) FCC-required local commercial television and noncommercial educational television programming; (2) any public, educational, and governmental access programming required by the cable system franchise; and (3) any signal of a local television broadcast station provided by the cable operator to any subscriber (with an exception). Prohibits a cable operator from adding additional video programming signals or services to the lifeline tier. Directs the FCC to prescribe regulations for lifeline tier rates.
People & committees
Rep. Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [R-LA-3] · R–LA
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 Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on 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 21, 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.4352 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.4352 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.4352 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.4352 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.