PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Aug 1, 2008
DTV Border Fix Act of 2008 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the renewal of a full-power analog television broadcasting license through February 17, 2013, for stations located within 50 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico, provided certain requirements are met, including that the renewal does not: (1) prevent the auction of recovered spectrum; (2) encumber or interfere with any channel reserved for public safety use; and (3) prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from considering or granting a request for waiver submitted for public safety service prior to enactment of this Act.
Requires the FCC, if mutually exclusive applications are submitted to use a channel under the amendments made by this Act, to award the authority to use the channel through competitive bidding under existing procedures.
Prohibits the FCC from extending or renewing a full-power television broadcast license that authorizes analog service on or after February 17, 2013.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Received in the House.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8005-8006)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S8005-8006)
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8005; text: CR S8005)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8005-8006)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 886.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 110-424.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 110-424.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
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.
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.2507 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.2507 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.2507 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.2507 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.