The bill adds a new Section 346 to the Communications Act and amends Title 17 to let subscribers in specified Wisconsin counties elect to receive an in‑state, adjacent‑market network station instead of (or in addition to) their local affiliate. For cable operators the bill removes the need for retransmission consent for those in‑state adjacent‑market retransmissions and treats the carried signal as "significantly viewed"; for satellite carriers it creates a technical‑feasibility standard and exempts those retransmissions from statutory distant‑signal counting limits.
This is a geographically narrow but legally consequential change: it retools how local carriage obligations, retransmission consent, and the compulsory copyright licensing regime interact in a set of counties that lack an in‑state affiliate for certain networks. The practical result will be new operational choices for operators, altered bargaining leverage for broadcasters, and a specific compliance burden on the FCC and carriers to implement subscriber elections and technical‑feasibility determinations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires cable operators and satellite carriers to offer subscribers in certain Wisconsin counties the option to receive an in‑state, adjacent‑market network station feed instead of (or alongside) the local affiliate. It adds a new statutory definition for "in‑state, adjacent‑market network station retransmission," inserts a new Section 346 into the Communications Act, and amends Title 17 (sections 119 and 122) so those retransmissions are eligible for compulsory licenses and do not count toward satellite distant‑signal limits.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are subscribers in the listed Wisconsin counties; cable operators and satellite carriers serving those subscribers; the network affiliates in adjacent in‑state markets; and the local in‑market broadcasters whose carriage and retransmission consent leverage may change. The FCC will also have a role in determining technical feasibility for satellite carriage and in administering related regulatory changes.
Why It Matters
The bill alters core mechanics of American broadcast carriage: it permits geographic tailoring of signal carriage that bypasses retransmission consent for cable and changes how distant‑signal caps apply to satellite carriers. Though limited in scope, it creates a precedent for state‑or county‑level carve‑outs that shift bargaining power between broadcasters and MVPDs (multichannel video programming distributors) and affects how statutory licenses are used in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new Section 346 into the Communications Act that lets a subscriber in a "covered county" choose between the local network affiliate or an in‑state, adjacent‑market affiliate for any given network. The text imports several definitions from Title 17 (notably the in‑state adjacent‑market concept from section 119(d)) and treats cable operators and satellite carriers symmetrically for the purposes of a subscriber’s election, with a conversion of satellite‑specific language into cable terms where necessary.
For cable operators the bill makes two practical changes: it removes the need to obtain retransmission consent under section 325(b) for an in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmission to a covered‑county subscriber, and it instructs that the carried signal be treated as "significantly viewed" in that county (cross‑referencing 47 C.F.R. § 76.54). That means a cable system that carries the in‑state adjacent feed to a covered‑county subscriber can count that carriage as satisfying local carriage obligations and avoid a retransmission‑consent negotiation for that county.Satellite carriers get a different set of rules.
The bill amends the Communications Act and Title 17 so that in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmissions to covered‑county subscribers do not count toward the statutory caps on distant or secondary transmissions that otherwise limit satellite carriage. At the same time, satellites are required to provide the retransmission only if it is "technically feasible," a standard the FCC must define.
The Title 17 amendments also explicitly make those retransmissions eligible for the compulsory copyright licenses that govern secondary transmissions, while carving out counting exemptions so carriage won’t trigger distant‑signal limits.Geographically the change is narrow and state‑specific: the bill identifies 13 Wisconsin counties (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St. Croix, and Washburn) as "covered counties," but only where the county is not already in the local market of an in‑state station affiliated with the same network. Operationally this creates an immediate implementation task: carriers must offer a subscriber election mechanism, pipelines must carry the selected in‑state feed, license accounting must be adjusted, and the FCC will need processes to determine technical feasibility and to handle any disputes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new Section 346 of the Communications Act that requires cable operators and satellite carriers to offer a subscriber election—local affiliate, in‑state adjacent‑market affiliate, or both—for covered counties.
For cable carriage, the bill removes section 325(b) retransmission‑consent requirements for in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmissions to covered‑county subscribers and designates those signals as "significantly viewed" under the FCC’s rules.
For satellite carriage, the bill requires retransmissions to be technically feasible as determined by the FCC and exempts such in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmissions to covered counties from the numerical limits that otherwise constrain distant‑signal carriage.
Title 17 is amended (sections 119 and 122) to ensure these in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmissions are eligible for the statutory compulsory license for secondary transmissions and to add statutory definitions including a precise list of covered counties.
Covered counties are explicitly: Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St. Croix, and Washburn (Wisconsin), and a county only qualifies if it is not in the local market of any same‑network station whose community of license is in Wisconsin.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the bill as the "Go Pack Go Act of 2025." This is the standard short‑title clause and has no operational effect beyond naming the measure.
Subscriber election and new definitions
Adds Section 346 to the Communications Act. The new section imports several definitions from Title 17 (notably the in‑state, adjacent‑market concept) and requires cable operators and satellite carriers to offer a subscriber in a covered county the option to receive a local network station, an in‑state adjacent‑market network station, or both. For carriers, the statute maps satellite statutory terminology onto cable operators so the election applies to both delivery platforms.
Relation to local carriage and cable treatment
If a subscriber elects only the in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmission, the bill declares that providing that feed satisfies statutory local carriage obligations under existing sections (e.g., sections 338, 614, or 615). For cable operators it also removes the application of section 325(b) (retransmission consent) to these in‑state adjacent‑market retransmissions and instructs the FCC to treat the carried broadcast as "significantly viewed" in the covered county. For satellite carriers the statute conditions carriage on the FCC finding that providing the feed is technically feasible.
Satellite carriage limits and compulsory license adjustments
The bill amends section 339 of the Communications Act and sections 119 and 122 of Title 17 to exempt in‑state, adjacent‑market retransmissions to covered‑county subscribers from the numerical limits that govern distant‑signal carriage. It explicitly adds statutory definitions (including the covered‑county list) so those retransmissions can be treated as eligible for compulsory secondary‑transmission licenses while not counting against satellite caps. Practically, carriers will still owe applicable statutory royalties, but those transmissions won’t push them over statutory carriage ceilings.
Geographic carve‑out: the Wisconsin county list
Section 3 adds a narrow geographic definition: the bill lists thirteen Wisconsin counties by name and conditions coverage on the county not being in the local market of any same‑network station whose community of license is in Wisconsin. That criterion limits the carve‑out to counties that lack an in‑state affiliate for the same network and therefore creates a targeted remedy for viewers there.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of the listed Wisconsin counties (Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Dunn, Florence, Iron, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer, St. Croix, Washburn): they gain the statutory right to choose an in‑state adjacent‑market network feed, which may improve access to in‑state news, sports, and programming.
- In‑state, adjacent‑market network stations (affiliates whose community of license is in Wisconsin but whose market is adjacent): they gain carriage opportunities in previously unserved counties and expanded audience reach without needing to secure retransmission consent from cable systems in those counties.
- Cable operators: they receive a statutory mechanism to satisfy local carriage obligations by carrying an in‑state adjacent‑market signal and avoid retransmission‑consent negotiations for those specific retransmissions, simplifying carriage choices in affected counties.
- Satellite carriers: they get a counting exemption so carrying these in‑state feeds won’t consume part of their statutory distant‑signal allotment, giving them more flexibility in lineup decisions for affected subscribers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local in‑market network affiliates that previously counted on carriage or retransmission consent revenue from these counties: they may lose carriage or bargaining leverage, potentially reducing local ad reach and retrans consent fees.
- Broadcast networks and stations that rely on retransmission consent as a revenue stream: shifting carriage mechanisms reduce leverage in negotiations and could depress retransmission compensation in or around the affected markets.
- Smaller cable systems and MVPDs: they must implement subscriber election processes, technical changes to carry a different RF or feed, and update billing/lineup systems—operational costs that may be nontrivial for small operators.
- The FCC and administrative bodies: the agency must adjudicate technical‑feasibility claims, interpret the new definitions, and handle disputes—an unbudgeted regulatory workload with potential for litigation over definitions and technical standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between increasing consumer access to preferred in‑state programming in specific counties and preserving broadcasters’ retransmission‑consent leverage that funds local programming. The bill solves an access problem for certain viewers while simultaneously eroding a key market mechanism broadcasters use to finance local news—there is no mechanism here that replaces that lost bargaining power or its financial consequences.
The bill advances a narrow consumer‑access objective but raises several implementation and policy questions. First, removing retransmission consent for cable carriage in covered counties undermines a key revenue source for local broadcasters; retransmission fees fund local newsrooms, and reduced leverage in a set of counties can have spillover effects in neighboring markets.
Second, the "technical feasibility" standard for satellite carriage is undefined in the statute: the FCC will need to create a practical, objective test, and carriers are likely to litigate disputed determinations. Third, while the bill exempts these retransmissions from satellite counting limits, it does not change the underlying royalty obligations under the compulsory license; carriers should expect continued fee obligations even if counting relief reduces carriage constraints.
There are also administrative and consumer‑experience frictions. Carriers must implement subscriber election mechanics (timing, opt‑in vs opt‑out, notice and election interfaces), manage multiple simultaneous feeds, and ensure emergency alerting and local advertising are properly handled for whichever feed the subscriber picks.
The state‑specific, county‑by‑county carve‑out creates an obvious question of parity: why this list of Wisconsin counties? That specificity makes the statute vulnerable to selective‑treatment critiques and invites other jurisdictions to seek similar exemptions, which could fragment carriage law and complicate national carriage practices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.