PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 10, 2013
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require certain cable system operators, with channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental (PEG) use that is designated by a franchising authority under existing code provisions or required to be provided under this Act, to: (1) carry PEG-use signals to subscribers without material degradation and without altering or removing content or data; (2) provide viewable signals to every cable subscriber without additional service or equipment charges; and (3) provide to the appropriate local government subdivision (LGS), free of charge, any transmission services and the use of any transmission facilities necessary to meet such requirements.
Requires a cable operator in a state adopting applicable franchising legislation that becomes effective after May 31, 2005, to: (1) owe any LGS in which the operator provides cable service during a year beginning after enactment of this Act an LGS-determined amount for such year, within specified limits, notwithstanding requirements relating to support for cable system PEG use in such state legislation; and (2) provide a certain number of channels for PEG use in an LGS, notwithstanding requirements relating to the number of PEG-use cable channels in such state legislation.
Defines "local government subdivision" (referred to above as an LGS) as a franchising authority deriving its power to grant a franchise from state or local law or an entity considered such a franchising authority as of the day before the effective date of such state legislation relating to support.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Specifies forms of support as cash payments, in-kind support, and free services provided by the cable system operator, or its predecessor, to the LGS for the cable system's PEG use.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) LGS or state enforcement, and (2) nonbinding mediation and court proceedings concerning disputed support amounts.
Revises the definition of "franchise fee" including by striking a provision prohibiting such a fee from including (in the case of a franchise granted after the enactment of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984) capital costs that the franchise requires the cable operator to incur for PEG access facilities.
People & committees
Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI] · D–WI
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.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.1789 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.1789 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.1789 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.1789 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.