Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The Go Pack Go Act of 2025 amends the Communications Act of 1934 and parts of Title 17 to allow subscribers in specified Wisconsin counties (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St. Croix, and Washburn) to elect to receive an in‑State, adjacent‑market network station (defined as a network station whose community of license is in the subscriber’s State and in a local market adjacent to the subscriber’s local market) in place of or in addition to the normally‑carried local network station.
Whether changing retransmission consent rules (Section 325(b) exception) is acceptable: liberal/centrist emphasize consumer access and can accept limited weakening with safeguards; conservatives emphasize protection of broadcasters’ bargaining rights.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change that is precisely drafted in statutory terms and integrates directly into existing Communications Act and copyright provisions.
The Go Pack Go Act of 2025 amends the Communications Act of 1934 and parts of Title 17 to allow subscribers in specified Wisconsin counties (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St.
Croix, and Washburn) to elect to receive an in‑State, adjacent‑market network station (defined as a network station whose community of license is in the subscriber’s State and in a local market adjacent to the subscriber’s local market) in place of or in addition to the normally‑carried local network station.
The bill requires cable operators and (to the extent technically feasible) satellite carriers to provide that retransmission at the subscriber’s election, treats such retransmissions as “significantly viewed” for certain rules, excludes them from certain satellite carriage limits, and makes conforming changes to the statutory copyright licensing rules (17 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 122) so these retransmissions do not count toward distant signal limits and are eligible for statutory licensing.
On content alone, the bill is narrowly focused and administratively feasible, which helps its prospects. However, it benefits a small geographic constituency while changing commercial carriage/copyright dynamics that may provoke organized opposition from broadcasters and networks. Absence of a broader compromise (e.g., sunset, pilot status, or compensation mechanisms) and the need for cooperation across multiple agencies and industries reduce the chance of enactment unless it is bundled into a larger, negotiation‑driven vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change that is precisely drafted in statutory terms and integrates directly into existing Communications Act and copyright provisions. It provides specific mechanisms (subscriber election options, definitions, statutory adjustments) appropriate to the change it seeks to make.
Whether changing retransmission consent rules (Section 325(b) exception) is acceptable: liberal/centrist emphasize consumer access and can accept limited weakening with safeguards; conservatives emphasize protection of broadcasters’ bargaining rights.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether changing retransmission consent rules (Section 325(b) exception) is acceptable: liberal/centrist emphasize consumer access and can accept limited weakening with safeguards; conservatives emphasize protection of…
A mainstream progressive reader would likely view the bill as a modest, targeted consumer‑access measure that expands in‑State local broadcast access for rural counties lacking an in‑State affiliate.
They would see benefits for cultural and civic connection (e.g., local sports and statewide news) and for consumer choice, while noting that the bill narrows some broadcaster leverage.
They may be cautiously supportive because it increases access for underserved, rural communities, though they would want protections for local journalism and fair compensation for broadcasters.
A pragmatic centrist would see the bill as a narrowly targeted fix addressing a particular geographic problem—allowing certain Wisconsin border counties to receive in‑State adjacent market stations.
They would appreciate the consumer‑choice aspect and the limited footprint but be attentive to how the change affects retransmission consent, broadcaster revenue, and precedent for other carve‑outs.
Their support would hinge on clear implementation details, minimal disruption to existing carriage agreements, and protections against unintended market distortions.
A mainstream conservative perspective would likely be skeptical of this bill as federal micromanagement of broadcast markets and a statutory carve‑out that reduces private contractual protections between broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors.
They would be concerned about interference with retransmission consent, regulatory overreach, and impacts on broadcaster property and bargaining rights.
Some conservatives in the affected communities might favor greater access to in‑State sports or news, but overall the bill’s preemptive rules and exceptions to retransmission consent would be seen as problematic.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is narrowly focused and administratively feasible, which helps its prospects. However, it benefits a small geographic constituency while changing commercial carriage/copyright dynamics that may provoke organized opposition from broadcasters and networks. Absence of a broader compromise (e.g., sunset, pilot status, or compensation mechanisms) and the need for cooperation across multiple agencies and industries reduce the chance of enactment unless it is bundled into a larger, negotiation‑driven vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether changing retransmission consent rules (Section 325(b) exception) is acceptable: liberal/centrist emphasize consumer access and can…
On content alone, the bill is narrowly focused and administratively feasible, which helps its prospects. However, it benefits a small geogr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change that is precisely drafted in statutory terms and integrates directly into existing Communications Act and copyright p…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.