PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR 7/1/2005 S7832)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 30, 2005
Video Choice Act of 2005 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit a competitive video services provider (CVSP) from being required to obtain a franchise in order to provide any video programming, interactive on-demand services, other programming services, or any other video services in an area in which the CVSP has any right or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any cable franchise obtained pursuant to any federal, state, or local law. Makes the CVSP be subject to the payment of fees (with limits) to a local franchising authority based on the gross revenue of the CVSP in that area.
Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or any state or political subdivision thereof from regulating the rates or any other aspect of the services provided by a CVSP.
Makes current franchise agreements entered into between a franchising authority and a CVSP exempt from this Act for the term of such agreement.
People & committees
Sen. Smith, Gordon H. [R-OR] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR 7/1/2005 S7832)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR 7/1/2005 S7831-7832)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1349 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 S.1349 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 S.1349 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 S.1349 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.