Go Pack Go Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 4, 2025
Bottom line
The 'Go Pack Go Act of 2025' aims to give television subscribers in certain Wisconsin counties greater access to in-state network programming, particularly for local news and sports, by adjusting federal carriage and copyright rules.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 and title 17, United States Code, to allow cable and satellite subscribers in specific Wisconsin counties (termed 'covered counties') to choose to receive in-state, adjacent-market network television programming instead of, or in addition to, their currently assigned local network stations. It also provides regulatory and copyright exemptions to facilitate this change for cable and satellite providers, ensuring the retransmissions are deemed 'significantly viewed' and do not count against satellite distant signal limits.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses long-standing issues where federal Designated Market Area (DMA) definitions force subscribers in certain counties to receive out-of-state network programming, often leading to a disconnect from local news, weather, and sports teams (like the Green Bay Packers). They contend it enhances consumer choice, provides more relevant local content, and corrects an outdated regulatory framework that doesn't reflect actual community interests.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this bill creates a carve-out that could complicate the existing, carefully balanced regulatory framework for television carriage and copyright. They may also contend that it could negatively impact the advertising revenue and viewership of existing 'local' (often out-of-state) broadcasters who currently serve these counties, potentially setting a precedent for similar requests from other regions.
The bill is relatively short and focused, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within the time given.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(b) to the Communications Act of 1934
Subscriber Choice for In-State TV Programming
This provision mandates that cable operators and satellite carriers must offer subscribers in designated 'covered counties' the option to receive either their default local network station, an 'in-State, adjacent-market network station retransmission' (meaning a station from within Wisconsin but in a neighboring market), or both. This gives consumers more control over which network affiliate they receive, specifically allowing them to opt for an in-state broadcast.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision directly addresses consumer demand for relevant local content, particularly for news, weather, and sports teams, which are often tied to their state rather than an arbitrary market definition. It empowers subscribers to choose programming that aligns with their community and interests.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that mandating specific programming options adds complexity to carriage agreements and could lead to increased operational costs for providers, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers. They may also raise concerns about disrupting existing market dynamics and the business models of currently assigned local stations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for greater consumer choice and access to geographically relevant content against the potential for increased regulatory burden on service providers and possible disruption to established local broadcast markets.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(c) to the Communications Act of 1934
Fulfillment of Local Carriage Obligations
This section clarifies that if a subscriber chooses to receive only an 'in-State, adjacent-market network station retransmission,' this choice will satisfy the cable operator's or satellite carrier's existing legal obligations to provide a local network station signal under federal 'must-carry' or 'retransmission consent' rules. It also ensures that a satellite carrier's status as a 'qualified carrier' for other purposes is not jeopardized by providing the elected in-state signal instead of the default local one.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(e)(1) to the Communications Act of 1934
Retransmission Consent Exception for Cable Operators
This provision specifically exempts cable operators from the requirement to obtain 'retransmission consent' (permission from the broadcaster, typically involving payment) when retransmitting an 'in-State, adjacent-market network station' to a subscriber in a covered county. This means cable operators can carry these specific in-state signals without needing to negotiate a separate agreement with the broadcaster for those particular subscribers.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 346(e)(2) to the Communications Act of 1934
Automatic 'Significantly Viewed' Status
This provision states that for cable operators providing an 'in-State, adjacent-market network station retransmission' to a subscriber in a covered county, the signal of that station will be automatically considered 'significantly viewed' in that county. This bypasses the need for a formal FCC determination, which typically involves viewership studies, simplifying the regulatory process for carrying these signals.
Section 3(a), amending 17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(B)(i) and 119(d)
Satellite Copyright License Expansion
This section modifies federal copyright law to allow satellite carriers to retransmit 'in-State, adjacent-market network stations' to subscribers in covered counties without these retransmissions counting towards existing statutory limits on 'distant signal' retransmissions. It also formally defines 'in-State, adjacent-market network station retransmission' and 'covered county' within the copyright statute, ensuring that satellite carriers have the necessary legal framework to offer these new programming choices.
The bill explicitly defines 'covered county' by listing specific counties in Wisconsin: Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St. Croix, or Washburn. These are the only counties to which the bill's provisions apply.
Section 3(a)(2)(B), adding new Paragraph (18) to 17 U.S.C. 119(d)
Why it matters:Defining terms within a dedicated section is standard legislative practice for clarity and precision. However, the specificity of the list makes it a key detail for understanding the bill's narrow geographic scope.
Case for: Supporters argue that explicitly listing the counties ensures the bill targets the precise areas experiencing the intended market definition issues, preventing unintended application to other regions. This specificity provides legal certainty.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a highly specific, enumerated list could be seen as legislative micromanagement, potentially setting a precedent for other states to seek similar, narrowly tailored legislative fixes rather than broader, more comprehensive reforms to market definitions.
Estimated impact: The bill's entire impact is confined to these 13 Wisconsin counties, affecting their approximately 200,000 residents and the cable/satellite providers serving them.