Texas Bills Explained

2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB924

SB924 excludes specified satellite and internet video services from the “video service” definition in Texas’s state-franchise law, while preserving certain payment duties and municipal legal rights.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to entities that provide video services.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Hancock. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

SB924 excludes specified satellite and internet video services from the “video service” definition in Texas’s state-franchise law, while preserving certain payment duties and municipal legal rights. The new exclusions cover direct-to-home satellite service transmitted directly to a customer’s premises without using a public right-of-way, and video accessed through a service enabling access to content, information, email or other internet services, including streaming. The existing exclusion for commercial mobile providers remains. The underlying definition still concerns programming through wireline facilities located at least partly in a public right-of-way. Section 1; Federal direct-to-home definition, subsection (v).

Two savings provisions matter. First, the new exclusions do not change the chapter’s right-of-way compensation obligations of a person holding a state franchise certificate on September 1, 2025. Second, they do not change the chapter’s application to compensation for the newly described services provided before September 1, 2025 by a person involved in litigation about this chapter on January 1, 2025. The act also states legislative intent not to affect a municipality’s existing right to sue a certificate holder or non-holder under the chapter. It does not decide who wins a particular lawsuit or cancel all fees owed by a streaming-related business. Sections 2–3.

The existing framework requires state franchise authority for covered cable/video services, subject to its municipal-franchise transition, and provides for municipal compensation. SB924 does not change the separate definition of “cable service.” Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. Existing authorization framework; Existing franchise-fee provisions and exceptions; Federal cable-service definition, paragraph (6); History; Section 4.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill, Senate report and engrossed text also proposed an internet-streaming exclusion from “cable service” and allowed immediate effectiveness if the voting threshold was met. The House substitute removed the cable-definition change, added the compensation/litigation savings provisions and municipal-rights statement, and fixed September 1 as the effective date. The sole floor amendment, Anchía’s adopted House third-reading amendment, changed the litigation cutoff from being involved on September 1, 2025 to having been involved on January 1, 2025. That change appears in the enrolled law; the Senate concurred. Amendment disposition; Version index.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

The exclusions clarify which services fall outside this particular state-franchise definition, potentially reducing disputes about future streaming/satellite treatment. Cities and existing certificate holders must still account for the expressly preserved compensation duties and older-service litigation. Consumers are not promised a lower subscription bill, and the act is not a general exemption from other taxes, regulation or contractual charges. Exclusions and preserved duties.

All five archived fiscal-note versions—from the March 17 introduced note through the May 23 as-passed-House note—anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact and assume implementation within existing resources. They do not quantify individual city revenues, litigation outcomes or customer savings.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.