Bill
HB 5123
The bill narrows and clarifies what counts as a “video service” by expanding definitions to include IPTV/OVS via public rights‑of‑way, while excluding mobile, DTH satellite, and in
Status & procedural history
- Bill number: HB 5123 (House Introduced)
- Prime sponsor: Rep. Mike Harris; multiple cosponsors (see bill text)
- Filed: March 13, 2025. Read/referred: first reading and referral actions recorded 4/7/2025 and again 10/23/2025 (electronically reproduced 10/23/2025). Referred to Committee on Government Operations (10/23/2025). Companion: SB 2449.
Purpose / intent
- To amend section 1 of the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act (2006 PA 480; MCL 484.3301) by revising and adding statutory definitions that govern the scope of “video service” regulation and related terms used throughout the Act. The change clarifies what kinds of services are covered by state uniform video franchising and which are expressly excluded.
Key provisions and changes
- Revises multiple definitions in MCL 484.3301, including but not limited to:
- “Video service” — expanded wording to cover “video programming, cable services, IPTV, or OVS provided ... through facilities located at least in part in the public rights‑of‑way without regard to delivery technology, including internet protocol technology.”
- Explicit exclusions from “video service”: (i) commercial mobile service providers (per 47 USC 332(d)); (ii) direct‑to‑home satellite services (per 47 USC 303(v)); and (iii) “video programming accessed via a service that enables users to access … the public internet, including streaming content.”
- New or clarified definitions: “household”; “incumbent video provider” (reference to providers serving within franchise area as of the effective date — bill text contains an apparent date reference to January 1, 2007); “IPTV”; “local unit of government” (city, village, township); “low‑income household” (average annual income under $35,000 as measured by most recent decennial census); “public rights‑of‑way”; “uniform video service local franchise agreement (franchise agreement)”; “video service provider fee”; and others.
- Preservation clause: the amendatory act states it does not relieve providers that hold a uniform video local franchise agreement on or before the amendatory act’s effective date from obligations to provide compensation for use of public rights‑of‑way.
Who is affected
- Video service providers using public rights‑of‑way (cable operators, IPTV providers, OVS operators).
- Incumbent cable and telecommunications video providers (definition and status addressed).
- Local franchising entities (cities, villages, townships) that enter uniform franchise agreements and collect any franchise/ROW compensation.
- Households and low‑income households indirectly, to the extent changes affect service availability, pricing, or local fees/revenues.
Potential impact and considerations
- Clarifies that delivery technology alone (e.g., IP) does not exempt a service from being a regulated “video service” if facilities use public rights‑of‑way.
- Explicit exclusions for mobile, direct‑to‑home satellite, and internet‑delivered streaming may limit municipal franchise authority or fee claims over those services.
- The low‑income household metric and definitions could inform programmatic or fee exemption provisions elsewhere in statute or rules.
- Ambiguity in text (reference to “effective date/January 1, 2007”) may require legislative or drafting clean‑up to confirm incumbent provider treatment.
References
- Amends: 2006 PA 480, section 1 (MCL 484.3301)
- Related: SB 2449 (companion)
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
